# As in the days of Noah.....



## baydoll

"... , so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:  

They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

  Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: 

They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;  but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.  

Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. "



That's from Luke Chapter 17 verses 26 through 30.


----------



## Xaquin44

um .... ok?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> um .... ok?



So what do you think it means?


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> After the "just" lmao destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters retreat to a Cave.
> 
> Lot's Virgin daughters get him drunk, and have sex with him.  We know they are Virgins (even though one of them was Married *Genesis 19:4*)
> because Lot offered both his Virgin daughters to the mob to appease them (*Genesis 19:8*)
> 
> As a result of the drunken party both of his Daughter bear Lot a Son.




True! You know your Bible! 

So what about the rest of that verse?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> So what do you think it means?



not much, as it's fiction ....

what do you think it means? (since you posted it .... )


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Man on Man love is bad, but banging your daughters is good


I missed the passage where it describes or identifies or in any way makes it appear what these daughters did was "good".  Could you point me to it?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> not much, as it's fiction ....
> 
> what do you think it means? (since you posted it .... )




Well thank you for responding. 

If you are wrong, then it means a whole lot of people are going to be in for a big surprise.....same as the people who scoffed Noah and then were drowned in the Flood.


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> but banging your daughters is good




Where is that stated?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Well thank you for responding.
> 
> If you are wrong, then it means a whole lot of people are going to be in for a big surprise.....same as the people who scoffed Noah and then were drowned in the Flood.



By all means, hold your breath.

edit: or even offer proof ....

or anything ....


----------



## This_person

Xaquin44 said:


> By all means, hold your breath.
> 
> edit: or even offer proof ....
> 
> or anything ....


As much proof for as against.  Better odds than some other educated guesses.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> By all means, hold your breath.
> 
> edit: or even offer proof ....
> 
> or anything ....




Excellent! I would be more than happy to! 

If the Bible is just a fairy tale, how do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?


If the Bible is just a fairy tale, why is it that absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds)?


If the Bible is just a fairy tale, why is it that so many of the principles of modern science recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally?

For example:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

and many others. 

Okay, your turn. Offer proof or evidence that shows the Bible is fiction and therefore not from God.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Excellent! I would be more than happy to!
> 
> If the Bible is just a fairy tale, how do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?



Clearly since Clive Cussler writes books that contain some real places, events, and people they must be true.

100%



baydoll said:


> If the Bible is just a fairy tale, why is it that absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds)?



examples ....



baydoll said:


> If the Bible is just a fairy tale, why is it that so many of the principles of modern science recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally?



Many principles of modern science were around ages before the bible was, so that argument holds very very little water.  Certainly not 40 days worth.



baydoll said:


> Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)



roundness .... not spherical.  nice try.  You'd have been better off using Isaiah 22:18 where it says 'ball'.  Either way, the Ancient Greeks mentioned it first.



baydoll said:


> Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)



"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

Words I don't see contained in Isaiah 55:9 - "Almost", "Infinite", "Extent", "of", "sidereal", "Universe"

you got the word "the" right though.  .... bravo.



baydoll said:


> Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)



"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."


Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy: The total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. 


The bible actually states the exact opposite, in that 'nothing' was there until god put it there.

Wrong again.



baydoll said:


> Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)



Ecclesiastes 1:7 - All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; to the place from where the rivers come, thither they return again.

OH THANK YOU JESUS AND GOD FOR WRITTING A PASSAGE IN A BOOK THAT LETS US KNOW THAT WATER RUNS DOWNHILL!

I'm sure the egyptians and ancient greeks or romans never noticed this.



baydoll said:


> Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)



I'm pretty sure anyone with even just one working eyeball could have figured this one out ....



baydoll said:


> Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)



25 I plead, O my God, do not take me in the midst of my days. Your years last through all generations. 
26 Of old you laid the earth's foundations; the heavens are the work of your hands. 
27 They perish, but you remain; they all wear out like a garment; Like clothing you change them and they are changed

I'm sorry, do you really think the bible was the first book to point out getting old?



baydoll said:


> Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)



ahahhahaha 



baydoll said:


> Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)



weather is hardly a unique concept to the bible .... it was being studied by nearly every established civilization in some fashion ever.



baydoll said:


> Gravitational field (Job 26:7)



"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

yes .... that is an accurate portrayel of the laws of gravity .... 

....





....

seriously?



baydoll said:


> and many others.



I hope they're better then the ones you provided lol



baydoll said:


> Okay, your turn. Offer proof or evidence that shows the Bible is fiction and therefore not from God.



oh, no one can _prove_ that ....

all the same, I'll take proven science over captain invisible and the because I told you so's.

you say "why is it that so many of the principles of modern science recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally?".

The big point you're missing is that they didn't need to be confirmed, because they were blatently obvious and taken for granted.


----------



## baydoll

> Clearly since Clive Cussler writes books that contain some real places, events, and people they must be true.
> 
> 100%



Mr. Cussler's books are true, 100%? Really? 

 Did the events in Mr. Cussler's books (whose writings I happen to admire, btw) really take place? For instance, in Raise the Titantic, can you prove that those events with the very same people in the very same place acting in the very same manner actually took place in that book actually happened as written in that book? 


There has been hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs. Which means that the Bible describes actual locations that can be (and has been) verified. Ditto people, events and so on.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> If the Bible is just a fairy tale, why is it that absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds)?
> 
> examples ....




These are just a few:





> ..." Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.
> 
> There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.
> 
> There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation."



I have some more if you'd like.


----------



## baydoll

> Many principles of modern science were around ages before the bible was, so that argument holds very very little water. Certainly not 40 days worth.



Again, really? Such as?


----------



## baydoll

> Either way, the Ancient Greeks mentioned it first.



Where?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Mr. Cussler's books are true, 100%? Really?



.... no.  they aren't.  that was my point.

look, if you're just stupid, we can stop this right now.  I have no interest in debating with someone who is either purposefully or actually stupid.



baydoll said:


> Did the events in Mr. Cussler's books (whose writings I happen to admire, btw) really take place? For instance, in Raise the Titantic, can you prove that those events with the very same people in the very same place acting in the very same manner actually took place in that book actually happened as written in that book?



No, you can't prove that.  Which was exactly my point.



baydoll said:


> There has been hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs. Which means that the Bible describes actual locations that can be (and has been) verified. Ditto people, events and so on.



The Titanic actually existed .... it has been verified in both photo and video.  Which means that Raise the Titanic describes actual locations that can be (and have been) verified.  Ditto people, events and so on.

It's still fiction ....


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> These are just a few:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some more if you'd like.



wow.

One self fulfilling prophecy .... 

Hey, I'm going to get a soda.

OH MY GOSH, I MUST BE A PROPHET BECAUSE I GOT ONE!


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9) 



> "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"
> 
> Words I don't see contained in Isaiah 55:9 - "Almost", "Infinite", "Extent", "of", "sidereal", "Universe"
> 
> you got the word "the" right though. .... bravo.



And what does the words ' heavens are higher than the earth' mean to you? Also, what does it mean by 'so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts'?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Again, really? Such as?



This'll have to wait till I get home .... if you want, type 'ancient greece' or 'ancient egypt' in any browser, and educate yourself.

If not, I can do it for you later.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> This'll have to wait till I get home .... if you want, type 'ancient greece' or 'ancient egypt' in any browser, and educate yourself.
> 
> If not, I can do it for you later.



I look forward to seeing your answer. 

Have a nice afternoon!


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> wow.
> 
> One self fulfilling prophecy ....
> 
> Hey, I'm going to get a soda.
> 
> OH MY GOSH, I MUST BE A PROPHET BECAUSE I GOT ONE!



I'm a little pressed for time, Xaquin and won't be able to get online this weekend but I will gladly post more for you (heck I'll throw in tons more) on Monday.

Thanks for being patient!


----------



## baydoll

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7) 

Ecclesiastes 1:7 - All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; to the place from where the rivers come, thither they return again.



> OH THANK YOU JESUS AND GOD FOR WRITTING A PASSAGE IN A BOOK THAT LETS US KNOW THAT WATER RUNS DOWNHILL!
> 
> I'm sure the egyptians and ancient greeks or romans never noticed this.



Actually that's not what the author of Ecclesiastes was talking about.  The Hydrologic cycle is weather, not 'water running downhill'. 

 The Bible taught that earth’s weather followed rules and cycles. 



> Centuries later, scientists began to discern the 'rules for the rain' that Job talked about. Rainfall is part of a process called the ‘water cycle’, and here’s how the cycle works. The sun evaporates water from the ocean. That water vapor rises and becomes clouds. The water in the clouds falls back to earth as rain, collecting in streams and rivers and making its way back to the ocean. This process then repeats itself over and over again. About 300 years ago, Galileo ‘discovered’ this cycle. In fact, even today scientists are only beginning to fully understand God’s 'decrees or rules for the rain.' Since 68 BC it was thought that somehow thunder triggered the rainfall. Now scientists are beginning to realize that just as it is written in Job 28:26, it is lightning that triggers the rain to fall. Job knew this 3,000 years ago.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27) 



> 25 I plead, O my God, do not take me in the midst of my days. Your years last through all generations.
> 26 Of old you laid the earth's foundations; the heavens are the work of your hands.
> 27 They perish, but you remain; they all wear out like a garment; Like clothing you change them and they are changed
> 
> I'm sorry, do you really think the bible was the first book to point out getting old?



Really? What was the first book to make that point?


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22) 



> I'm pretty sure anyone with even just one working eyeball could have figured this one out ....



Actually I don't think anyone's eyesight is that good: 



> Before the discovery of the telescope, references such as Jeremiah 33:22 (As the host of heaven can not be numbered) and Genesis 22:17 (which compares the stars of the heaven to the sand of the sea in multitude), must have seemed like serious mistakes. Men had always been fascinated by the stars and many had tried to count them. Ptolemy came up with 1,056. Tycho Brahe counted 777, while Johannes found 1,005. The maximum number of stars visible to the naked eye is around 4,000, if one counts every star that is visible from every point on the globe. [1] All would agree that 4000 is certainly not an "innumerable" number, and certainly not a number to be compared to the number of sand grains on the sea shore! However, with the discovery of the telescope, came the discovery of countless more stars. Scientists now estimate that the universe contains at least 1026 stars, which is a number that reflects the same order of magnitude as the number of sand grains on the earth. [2] The universe itself is implied to be immeasurable in Jeremiah 31:37. Even today, with our sophisticated telescopes, this Biblical statement is still true. Another interesting verse is I Corinthians 15:41 that tells us that "one star differeth from another star in glory." Although at one time this may have seemed like a mistake, we now know that no two stars are alike. As far as our solar system is concerned, some Biblical references such as Psalm 19:6 are claimed to be scientifically inaccurate since they seem to describe the sun as revolving around the earth. However, we must keep in mind that even in our modern, scientific culture we use the phrases "sunrise" and "sunset", without being accused of scientific inaccuracies. They are simply everyday expressions that everyone understands. Furthermore, we now know that our sun is no more fixed in space than the earth is. It is revolving around an unknown center of the Milky Way galaxy. Therefore, all motion is relative motion anyway, and the best way to describe it is to arbitrarily select a point of assumed zero velocities and measure all velocities relative to that point. [3] So, once again, in relation to astronomy the Bible is found to be accurate.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
> 
> 
> 
> And what does the word higher than the earth mean to you? Are you saying your thoughts and your ways higher than God?



higher is relative in space, but if you want to use the crust of the earth as base, nearly everything in the universe is 'higher' then the earth.

as for my thoughts and ways being higher then god, well first you'd have to prove his existance.

although, barring proof, one of us (god and I) created satan and one of us didn't ....


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
> 
> Ecclesiastes 1:7 - All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; to the place from where the rivers come, thither they return again.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's not what the author of Ecclesiastes was talking about.  The Hydrologic cycle is weather, not 'water running downhill'.
> 
> The Bible taught that earth’s weather followed rules and cycles.



yes, and the ancient egyptians never knew about the seasonal flooding of the nile .... looonnnngggggg before the bible.

I could find many more examples, but that was one of the ones I remember from middle school history.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What was the first book to make that point?



I used 'book' as a very sarcastic example .... I'm very positive that people knew what 'getting older' was long before the bible pointed it out.

Please don't be so dense if you can help it.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11) 



> ahahhahaha









> This important verse, along with others (e.g., Genesis 9:3-6), indicates that the blood circulation is the key factor in physical life (a discovery made only in 1616 by William Harvey). The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also transmits the very “breath of life,” carrying the oxygen from the lungs throughout the body to all its cells. This relatively modern scientific insight merely confirms what God revealed thousands of years ago.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6) 



> weather is hardly a unique concept to the bible .... it was being studied by nearly every established civilization in some fashion ever.




That be true..... BUT:



> ancient cultures were often so mystified by the weather that they attributed mystical forces to everything they saw. But look at how the Biblical writers described the forces of weather (something we have come to call the Hydrologic Cycle):
> 
> 
> Job 26:8
> He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight
> 
> Job 36:27-28
> He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind
> 
> Ecclesiastes 1:6-7
> The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again
> 
> Genesis 8:22
> As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.
> 
> Job 28:26
> God made decrees [rules] for the rain. And He set a way for the lightning of the thunder
> 
> Amos 9:6
> He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, the LORD is His name.
> 
> 
> Remember that in ancient times, most religious scripture taught that lightning bolts were missiles thrown in anger by any number of gods. In China, Taoist scripture regarded the rainbow as a deadly rain dragon. In Confucius scripture, the goddess of lightning, Tien Mu, flashed light on her intended victims to enable Lei Kung, the god of thunder to launch his deadly bolts with precision! And since rain is so necessary to life, ancient people wondered what caused it in hopes of increasing its delivery. Some tried to stab holes in the clouds with spears. The Vedas (Hindu scripture) advised to tie a frog with its mouth open to a particular tree and say a specific set of words in order to cause the rain to fall. Now the Bible also talks about rain, lightning and storms, but it contains none of the superstitious ideas found in writings. The Bible taught that earth’s weather followed rules and cycles.
> 
> Centuries later, scientists began to discern the 'rules for the rain' that Job talked about. Rainfall is part of a process called the ‘water cycle’, and here’s how the cycle works. The sun evaporates water from the ocean. That water vapor rises and becomes clouds. The water in the clouds falls back to earth as rain, collecting in streams and rivers and making its way back to the ocean. This process then repeats itself over and over again. About 300 years ago, Galileo ‘discovered’ this cycle. In fact, even today scientists are only beginning to fully understand God’s 'decrees or rules for the rain.' Since 68 BC it was thought that somehow thunder triggered the rainfall. Now scientists are beginning to realize that just as it is written in Job 28:26, it is lightning that triggers the rain to fall. Job knew this 3,000 years ago


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't think anyone's eyesight is that good:



I see that you are not familliar with simile.

of course no one's eyesight is good enough to count every star .... but it only takes a brief glance in the upward direction to see there is a vast number of stars ....


funny how many of these 'scientific discoveries' that (according (falsely) to you) first make their incredible appearance in the bible, can be easily discovered by _looking around for a few seconds_.


----------



## baydoll

I'm headed out the door, Xaquin, but will be back online on Monday.

Hope you have a nice weekend!


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)



ancient egyptians knew about blood flow etc. again, long before the bible.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That be true..... BUT:



"ancient cultures were often so mystified by the weather that they attributed mystical forces to everything they saw."

this is from your quote and it's very true.  Early christians did it too .... they attributed it to 'god' rather than 'gods'

no big deal, and certainly nothing new.


----------



## Xaquin44

In short, none of your 'discoveries' are unique or original to the bible.


----------



## suzanne

Baydoll,  outstanding presentation!


----------



## Xaquin44

suzanne said:


> Baydoll,  outstanding presentation!



aside from everything you said being 100% wrong ....

(I hope you were being sarcastic)


----------



## baydoll

suzanne said:


> Baydoll,  outstanding presentation!



Thank you, Suzanne!


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> I see that you are not familliar with simile.
> 
> of course no one's eyesight is good enough to count every star .... but it only takes a brief glance in the upward direction to see there is a vast number of stars ....
> 
> 
> funny how many of these 'scientific discoveries' that (according (falsely) to you) first make their incredible appearance in the bible, can be easily discovered by _looking around for a few seconds_.



From The Signature of God by Grant Jeffries:

"  'Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." Gen 5:15 

The unaided human eye can see and count about 1,029 stars. With a pair of binoculars or an inexpensive telescope you can see over 3,300 stars. In the last few years modern telescopes have allowed us to view over two hundred millions stars in our own galaxy called the Milky Way. As late as 1915, astronomers believed that our galaxy composed the entire universe. Then in 1925, the great astronomer Edwin Hubble used his new one hundred inch mirror telescope on Mt. Wilson, the largest in the world at that time, to view whole new galaxies of stars that were more than six million trillion miles away from earth. Professor Hubble proved that the universe contained as many galaxies outside our glaxay as there were stars inside our home galaxy, the Milky Way. 

However, in the last few months, (and this being 1996) scientists have used the Hubble telescope to focus on a tiny point in space so small that it is equal to focusing your eye on an area the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length.

After intensely examining this very small area of space, the astronomers determined that it contained an ADDITIONAL FIFTEEN HUNDRED GALAXIES, each the size of our Milky Way. 

They were astonished to discover that the universe is more than FIVE TIMES LARGER than we previously persumed. 

They now know the known universe contains more than fifty billion galaxies with each galaxy containing more than two hundred millions stars. 

The mind of man can scarely conceive of such a vast universe in which stars extend out from our solar system for millions of trillions of miles in every direction. 



> Ge 22:17 -
> blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.


----------



## Xaquin44

that really doesn't prove your point.

even a little.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> ancient egyptians knew about blood flow etc. again, long before the bible.




Actually they didn't. 

Again, from the Signature of God:

"It is fascinating to study the several hundred prescriptions in papyrus Ebers to gain an understanding of the level of medical and sanitary knowledge possessed by the Egyptians, the most advanced society on earth in the days of Moses. Despite their advanced astronomical and engineering knowledge, as evidenced by their great temples at Karnak and the three great pyramids at Giza, the Egyptians's level of medical knowledge was extremely primitive and dangerous. Yet the prided themselves on their great medical knowledge as revealed in various medical manuscripts that have survived the ravages of time, including papyrus ebers mentioned above written about the time of Moses.

As an example of the medical ignorance and primitive state of their medical knowledge, consider the Egyptian doctor's suggestion for healing an infected splinter wound. The prescription involves the application of an ointment mixture composed of the blood of worms mixed with the dung of a donkey. The various germs, including tetanus, contained in the donkey's dung must have assured that the patient would rapidly forget the pain of his splinter as he died from the assortment of other diseases produced by his doctor's contaminated medicine. 

The Egyptian doctors had an equally wondrous cure for a poisonous snake bite. They poured 'magical water' over a pagan idol and then gave it to the victim for what probably turned out to be his last drink on earth. 

According to these ancient documents, the pharmacies of ancient Egypt provided the popular prescriptions including "lizard's blood, swines teeth, putrid meat, stinking fat, moisture from a pig's ear, milk, goose, grease, ass's hoofs, animal fat from various souces, excreta from animals including human beings, donkeys, antelopes, dogs, cats and even fly dung." 

A remedy for too much crying in a child: "spn-seeds; fly dung from a wall; is made in a paste, strained and drunk for four days. The crying will cease." No doubt the crying will cease with the death of the poor child receiving this deadly potion. "


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> yes, and the ancient egyptians never knew about the seasonal flooding of the nile .... looonnnngggggg before the bible.
> 
> I could find many more examples, but that was one of the ones I remember from middle school history.



"That statement alone may not seem very profound but when considered with other biblical passages, it becomes all the more remarkable. For example:  the Mississippi River dumps approxiamtely 518 billions of gallons of water every 24 hours into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all the water go? And that's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle. 

Ecclesiates 11:3 states that "if the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth." Look at the Bible's concise words in Amos 9:6 "He...calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth." 

The idea of a complete water cycle was not fully understood by science until the 17th century. However, more than two thousand years prior to the discoveries of Pierre Perrault, Edme Mariotte, Edmund Halley, and others, the Scripture clearly spoke of a water cycle. "

(Hidden Wealth...Ray Comfort)


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Actually they didn't.



yes. they did.

read up on the process of embalming.  today's scientists still have a tough time preserving a body as well as they did.

I'd like to see research not done by a biased christian source when spouting things like "The Egyptian doctors had an equally wondrous cure for a poisonous snake bite. They poured 'magical water' over a pagan idol and then gave it to the victim for what probably turned out to be his last drink on earth."

all ancient cultures got things wrong.  heck, we still get things wrong today.

and anyway, you simply saying that egyptians didn't understand proper medicines (for their time) and anatomy, doesn't make it so.  There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

again, for emphasis.  Making a statement doesn't make it true.  Evidence (excuse me) .... Actual evidence (i.e. scientific evidence, not unsubstantiated biblical 'evidence') is needed to show a statement true.


----------



## baydoll

> and anyway, you simply saying that egyptians didn't understand proper medicines (for their time) and anatomy, doesn't make it so. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.




Actually it wasn't me who said so. Please go back and read where the author of that book I quoted got his information from. 

And please list all this 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary'.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> "That statement alone may not seem very profound but when considered with other biblical passages, it becomes all the more remarkable. For example:  the Mississippi River dumps approxiamtely 518 billions of gallons of water every 24 hours into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all the water go? And that's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle.
> 
> Ecclesiates 11:3 states that "if the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth." Look at the Bible's concise words in Amos 9:6 "He...calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth."
> 
> The idea of a complete water cycle was not fully understood by science until the 17th century. However, more than two thousand years prior to the discoveries of Pierre Perrault, Edme Mariotte, Edmund Halley, and others, the Scripture clearly spoke of a water cycle. "
> 
> (Hidden Wealth...Ray Comfort)



you are reaching, and it's very amusing.  The egyptians knew exactly where the water went .... into the mediterranean.  They also knew that rains and melts fueled the flooding of the nile.  They knew this because they _looked_.

Your 'biblical science' is nothing more than obvious observations.


----------



## baydoll

> I'd like to see research not done by a biased christian source when spouting things like "The Egyptian doctors had an equally wondrous cure for a poisonous snake bite. They poured 'magical water' over a pagan idol and then gave it to the victim for what probably turned out to be his last drink on earth."



Again, go back and read where this 'research' came from. 

I wouldn't exactly call it 'biased'.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> you are reaching, and it's very amusing.  The egyptians knew exactly where the water went .... into the mediterranean.  They also knew that rains and melts fueled the flooding of the nile.  They knew this because they _looked_.
> 
> Your 'biblical science' is nothing more than obvious observations.



The Egyptian knew the nature of the water cycle? Care to provide this evidence for us?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> that really doesn't prove your point.
> 
> even a little.



Can your eyes see that there are billions of stars in our universe?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Actually it wasn't me who said so. Please go back and read where the author of that book I quoted got his imformation from.
> 
> And please list all this 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary'.



you didn't mention the author, just the title "the signature of god", which I'm going to go ahead and guess is biased towards god ....

Ancient Egyptian Medicine

Medicine In Old Egypt

Ancient Egyptian medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> The Egyptian knew the nature of the water cycle? Care to provide this evidence for us?



Ancient Egypt - Culture: Dependence on the Nile

Nile River. River Nile. Ancient Egypt. Inundation. Flooding

etc. etc.

look it up yourself.  Either way, the bible still isn't credited with any of the discoveries you've pointed out (except by foolish believers that are so far gone they'll believe anything some guy says as long as it's credited to god) because they are all obvious.

did you need the bible to tell you there are a lot of stars?  that bleeding to death is bad?  that when it rains more water gets into rivers etc. which then flow downhill?  

no?  I hope not, because no one else needs the bible to tell them that.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Can your eyes see that there are billions of stars in our universe?



when I open them. 

yes.

also, the bible didn't say 'billions', and you still don't understand simile.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> when I open them.
> 
> yes.
> 
> also, the bible didn't say 'billions', and you still don't understand simile.




How many individual pieces of sand in this world are there?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> How many individual pieces of sand in this world are there?



42.


----------



## baydoll

> Ancient Egypt - Culture: Dependence on the Nile
> 
> Nile River. River Nile. Ancient Egypt. Inundation. Flooding
> 
> etc. etc.




There isn't anything in either of those sites that say anything about the Epyptian's knowledge of the complexity of the weather system such as evaporation, cloud formation, thunder, lightning rain and so on.   




> look it up yourself.



That's a cop-out. Notice I don't do that to you.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> 42.



That's amazing!


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> There isn't anything in either of those sites that say anything about the Epyptian's knowledge of the complexity of the weather system such as evaporation, cloud formation, thunder, lightning rain and so on.



it isn't in the bible either lol

also, you can look it up yourself in addition to the links provided.

hardly a cop out.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> That's amazing!



I know.


----------



## baydoll

> did you need the bible to tell you there are a lot of stars? that bleeding to death is bad? that when it rains more water gets into rivers etc. which then flow downhill?
> 
> no? I hope not, because no one else needs the bible to tell them that.




No but it helps to authenicate Who the Author was and that it is supernatural in origin. 

If the Bible proves itself to be the Word of the One who created all things, it would make sense to search its pages. After all, time will take each of us to the grave and if there was one chance in a million that the Bible's promise of immortality and threat of damnation is true, we owe it to our good sense just to look into it.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> No but it helps to authenicate Who the Author was and that it is supernatural in origin.



WOW!

I must be supernatural, because I learned all that crap when I was 8 just by looking around.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> I know.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> WOW!
> 
> I must be supernatural, because I learned all that crap when I was 8 just by looking around.




You knew the earth was round just by looking around?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> You knew the earth was round just by looking around?



no, I learned that in kindergarten.

edit: actually, I learned it was spherical.  Which is different then round.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> WOW!
> 
> I must be supernatural, because I learned all that crap when I was 8 just by looking around.



Did you learn who/what/how this world came into being? 

Wow you are right! That IS amazing!


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> no, I learned that in kindergarten.




So you didn't 'learn' it just by looking around.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Did you learn who/what/how this world came into being?
> 
> Wow you are right! That IS amazing!



as much as anyone else on the planet =)


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> So you didn't 'learn' it just by looking around.



well, looking around in books I suppose

the greeks hit it first though =)

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and they were more correct then the passage you pointed out which says 'round'.

hopefully, you don't need me to tell you the difference between 'round' and 'spherical' do you?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> No but it helps to authenicate Who the Author was and that it is supernatural in origin.
> 
> If the Bible proves itself to be the Word of the One who created all things, it would make sense to search its pages. *After all, time will take each of us to the grave and if there was one chance in a million that the Bible's promise of immortality and threat of damnation is true, we owe it to our good sense just to look into it*.



well i guess you better pray to alah and to buddah and all L Ron Hubbard too, there is an equally good chance that those religions are correct.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> edit: actually, I learned it was spherical.  Which is different then round.




Did that person who told you this in kindergarden also tell you that the word circle is translated from the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated circuit or compass which indicated something spherical, rounded or arched? 

And that the book of Isaiah which was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC  and 300 years before Aristotle suggested it in his book, 'On the Heavens' that the earth might be a sphere? And that it would be another 2,000 years later (at the time when science thought the world flat) in which  Scriptures inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world?


----------



## baydoll

I've got to get to work but I will try and come back later if time allows..

Hi Tommy!


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> as much as anyone else on the planet =)



Before I go, do you wanna fill us in on it?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Before I go, do you wanna fill us in on it?



I don't know .... which is to say, I know as much as anyone else on the planet.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> I've got to get to work but I will try and come back later if time allows..
> 
> Hi Tommy!



Hi.....

but why ignore my comment? all those others are at least as likely to be true, so do you pray to alah as well?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Did that person who told you this in kindergarden also tell you that the word circle is translated from the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated circuit or compass which indicated something spherical, rounded or arched?
> 
> And that the book of Isaiah which was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC  and 300 years before Aristotle suggested it in his book, 'On the Heavens' that the earth might be a sphere? And that it would be another 2,000 years later (at the time when science thought the world flat) in which  Scriptures inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world?



Isaiah 40:22 - Errancy Wiki

also, columbus sailed about for money ....

also, also, 2,000 years later, the church was doing it's best to shut up Galileo because he was right and the church was wrong.


----------



## foodcritic

baydoll said:


> Where?



While I, and many others appreciate your insight....Don't waste to much time with xaquin.....his other name is Wormwood....


----------



## Xaquin44

foodcritic said:


> While I, and many others appreciate your insight....Don't waste to much time with xaquin.....his other name is Wormwood....



Sorry I'm not stupid =(

Wait. No, I'm not.


----------



## foodcritic

Xaquin44 said:


> Sorry I'm not stupid =(
> 
> Wait. No, I'm not.



Wait....


----------



## Xaquin44

foodcritic said:


> Wait....



sorry that is.


----------



## foodcritic

*warm*



Nucklesack said:


> Chernobyl? What would the main ingredient of the Green Fairy (Absinthe) have to do with this thread?



knucklehead...getting warm but wrong on the meaning. keep searching...books


----------



## Xaquin44

foodcritic said:


> knucklehead...getting warm but wrong on the meaning. keep searching...books



He's refering to the Screwtape Letters.


----------



## foodcritic

Cant fool you....


----------



## foodcritic

Xaquin44 said:


> He's refering to the Screwtape Letters.



Let him do his own homework.

Maybe your two 

That would make a lot of sense in retrospect.


----------



## Xaquin44

foodcritic said:


> That would make a lot of sense in retrospect.



not really ....

but we all know what your mind centers on ....


----------



## baydoll

Hello all....

Sorry I disappeared on my very own thread but I haven't been able to get online until now....

I am hopeing to get back on here sometime later today! 

Thanks for 'playing' everyone!


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> Hi.....
> 
> but why ignore my comment? all those others are at least as likely to be true, so do you pray to alah as well?


''

Sorry, Tommy, but I wasn't ignoring your comments, just busy, that's all.

So please tell me why I should pray to allah as well?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> Isaiah 40:22 - Errancy Wiki
> 
> also, columbus sailed about for money ....
> 
> also, also, 2,000 years later, the church was doing it's best to shut up Galileo because he was right and the church was wrong.





 - from "Columbus's Book of Prophecies":




> "It was the Lord who put it into my mind,
> (I could feel His hand upon me), the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures.......
> 
> I am a most noteworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous Presence.
> 
> For the execution of the voyage to the Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps.
> It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah* had prophesied......
> 
> No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though He gives advice. Oh, what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things for which He holds Himself responsible! Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express their most devoted gratitude to Him."







And you are correct that the 'church' was trying to shut Galileo up and you are absoultely right the 'church' was wrong. 

See! You and I actually agree on something for a change!


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> and anyway, you simply saying that egyptians didn't understand proper medicines (for their time) and anatomy, doesn't make it so.  There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> 
> again, for emphasis.  Making a statement doesn't make it true.  Evidence (excuse me) .... Actual evidence (i.e. scientific evidence, not unsubstantiated biblical 'evidence') is needed to show a statement true.



Again, it wasn't me that said this....this evidence come from the Egyptians themselves via their ancient writings. Please read all my post, not just the parts you want to shoot down. 


And overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Oh? What are they? And please don't insult my intelligence and post a bunch of links and tell me to go look at them, thanks.


----------



## baydoll

> read up on the process of embalming.  today's scientists still have a tough time preserving a body as well as they did.



Please notice this has nothing to do with what the Scripture said regarding the LIFE that is in the blood, meaning that we NEED blood in order to LIVE. Did the Egyptians have blood donors? 

Why did they practice the method of bloodletting if they knew that life is in the blood?

The only thing embalming proves is that they like to dress their dead up to look pretty for the afterlife.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> ''
> 
> Sorry, Tommy, but I wasn't ignoring your comments, just busy, that's all.
> 
> So please tell me why I should pray to allah as well?





			
				baydoll said:
			
		

> After all, time will take each of us to the grave and if there was one chance in a million that the Bible's promise of immortality and threat of damnation is true, we owe it to our good sense just to look into it.



because alah and the others are just as likely to provide the "true" path


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> because alah and the others are just as likely to provide the "true" path



Oh? Did alah and others make predictions and have them come to pass as well?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Oh? Did alah and others make predictions and have them come to pass as well?



yes


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Again, it wasn't me that said this....this evidence come from the Egyptians themselves via their ancient writings. Please read all my post, not just the parts you want to shoot down.
> 
> 
> And overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Oh? What are they? And please don't insult my intelligence and post a bunch of links and tell me to go look at them, thanks.



so linking information is insulting your 'intelligence'?

look, I already know you're stupid, but if you can even be bothered to 'left click' and learn something, then there's really no point debating.

I already linked the information.  If you don't look at it or read it, it's hardly my fault.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Please notice this has nothing to do with what the Scripture said regarding the LIFE that is in the blood, meaning that we NEED blood in order to LIVE. Did the Egyptians have blood donors?
> 
> Why did they practice the method of bloodletting if they knew that life is in the blood?
> 
> The only thing embalming proves is that they like to dress their dead up to look pretty for the afterlife.



every culture up to the mid-late 1700s practiced blood letting in some form or other.  That doesn't mean that they didn't know what bleeding to death was.

I really can't believe people (in this case, you) are stupid enough to think that these ideas were first coined in the bible.

also, that is not what embalming was.  not even close.  However, since you refuse to read, you'll probably never know what it was for, or what knowledge of anatomy was required.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> yes




And they are?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> every culture up to the mid-late 1700s practiced blood letting in some form or other.  That doesn't mean that they didn't know what bleeding to death was.



Pardon my ignorance but isn't that what happens when bloodletting is used on someone?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Pardon my ignorance but isn't that what happens when bloodletting is used on someone?



no.

edit: well, no with a 'but' lol

I suppose if they never stopped the flow of blood, you'd bleed to death, but that wasn't standard practice.

Because the idea wasn't to kill someone.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> no.
> 
> edit: well, no with a 'but' lol
> 
> I suppose if they never stopped the flow of blood, you'd bleed to death, but that wasn't standard practice.
> 
> Because the idea wasn't to kill someone.




I'll add a 'but' of my own...

But of course not. Which means the Egyptians couldn't have known that a person's LIFE is in the  blood, otherwise they wouldn't have used this medical treatment of bloodletting on anyone to begin with.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> it isn't in the bible either lol




I'll be quoting from John Ankenburg, John Weldon and Grant Jeffries throughout...

Job 36:27-28 reads as following: 


> For He makes waterdrops evaporate;
> they distill the rain into its mist,
> 
> which the clouds pour out
> and shower abundantly on mankind.



"Here we find a correct depiction of the earth's hydrologic cycle. In the Middle Ages the souce of rainwater was something of a mystery, but almost 3500 years earlier Job describes the rain cycle. "

From Ecclesiates 1:6-7, we read:




> The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.
> 
> All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.



"King Solomon, writing 3000 years ago, speaks of global wind currents and the earth's water cycle. The phrase, 'the wind goes towards the south and turns around to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit' is an accurate and astonishing description of the circular flow of air on earth, called the jet streams."

*How could Solomon have known 3000 years ago that the planetary winds followed a circular pattern from south to north and then south again? *

"Job speaks of God controlling the weather:

"For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees under the whole heavens, to establish a weight for the wind, and mete out the waters by measure. When He made a law for the rain, and a path for the thunderbolt..." Job 28:24-26

"In this statement, the Bible reveals that the winds are governed by their weight, a fact that scientists have only determined in the last century. 

*How could Job have known that the air and the wind patterns are governed by their actual weight?* 


Meterologists have found that the relative weights of the wind and water greatly determines the weather patterns.

This passage also reveals a profound appreciation of the fact that there is a scientific connection between lightning, thunder and electrical charge within a cloud is one of the key factors that cause microscopic water droplets in the clouds to join with other droplets until they are heavy enough to fall to earth. In addition, we now know that a powerful electrical charge as high as 300 million volts in a cloud sends a leader stroke down through the air to the ground. Instantaneously, only one - fifieth of a second later, a second, more powerful return stroke travels back up to the cloud, following the path through the air opened by the leader stroke. The thunder occurs because the air within this path has been vaporized by superheating it to 50,000 degrees by the lightning. The superheated air expands outward at supersonic speed, creating the noise of thunder. Job's description, "He made a law for th rain and a path for the thunderbolt" is startling in its accuracy.

No human could have known this in ancient times without the divine revelation of God."


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> wow.
> 
> One self fulfilling prophecy ....
> 
> Hey, I'm going to get a soda.
> 
> OH MY GOSH, I MUST BE A PROPHET BECAUSE I GOT ONE!




Okay.....so let's put you to a test, shall we?

Let me ask you a few questions, Mr. Prophet:

Can you predict the exact city in which the birth of a future US president would take place 700 years from now?

Can you predict the precise kind of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience a thousand years from today?

Can you also predict a new method of execution not currently known, one that wouldn't even be invented for another hundreds of years in the future?

Can you predict the SPECIFIC date of the appearance of some great future leader hundreds of years in advance?

Can you predict 50 SPECIFIC prophecies about some man in the future we would never meet, and have that man fulfill ALL 50 PREDICTIONS?

And out of those 50 SPECIFIC predictions, can you predict that 25 of them were about what OTHER people will do to that man which will be completely beyond his control?

Answer me if you will, O Wise Prophet One.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Okay.....so let's put you to a test, shall we?
> 
> Let me ask you a few questions, Mr. Prophet:
> 
> Can you predict the exact city in which the birth of a future US president would take place 700 years from now?
> 
> Can you predict the precise kind of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience a thousand years from today?
> 
> Can you also predict a new method of execution not currently known, one that wouldn't even be invented for another hundreds of years in the future?
> 
> Can you predict the SPECIFIC date of the appearance of some great future leader hundreds of years in advance?
> 
> Can you predict 50 SPECIFIC prophecies about some man in the future we would never meet, and have that man fulfill ALL 50 PREDICTIONS?
> 
> And out of those 50 SPECIFIC predictions, can you predict that 25 of them were about what OTHER people will do to man which will be completely beyond his control?
> 
> Answer me if you will, O Wise Prophet One.



nostradomous made many many predictions, and in retrospec it is easy to match them up with history, it doens't mean they have anything to do with each other.
For instance, your little quote about the winds. While it is made to sound like Job is describing the wind cycle in detail, in fact his account is factually inaccurate. the winds travel around the globe in a west to east fashion, most ly governed by the spin of the earth. NOT north to south to north again in a circular motion.


If you would like to know about the prophecies of other religions i suggest you go read about them.

what is most telling to me is that the prophecy you use to describe that your book is right and your god the true one, is a jewish prophecy, the comeing of the messiah. Unfortunately, the jews didn't believe jesus was anything more than a man. as a result, the "cult" that follwed jesus as god was established and eventually was accepted as religion.

So i ask you, how can jesus be the messiah, if the religious leaders of the religion which prophecized his coming dont believe he meets the criteria?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> So i ask you, how can jesus be the messiah, if the religious leaders of the religion which prophecized his coming dont believe he meets the criteria?




The religious leaders prophecised His Coming? Really? Who? Seems to me the 'religious leaders' were too busy killing those Prophets that were prophecising to do any prophecising of their own.  When was the last time you read the Bible? 

 And also, meet who's criteria....theirs?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> I'll add a 'but' of my own...
> 
> But of course not. Which means the Egyptians couldn't have known that a person's LIFE is in the  blood, otherwise they wouldn't have used this medical treatment of bloodletting on anyone to begin with.



all cultures used it in some form until the mid +/- 1700s including your christians.


----------



## baydoll

> nostradomous made many many predictions, and in retrospec it is easy to match them up with history, it doens't mean they have anything to do with each other.




Care to post some of those 'many many' prediction of Nostradomous so we can actually see just how 'accurate and specific' they were?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> all cultures used it in some form until the mid +/- 1700s including your christians.




Including 'my' Christians? 

What makes them 'my' Christians, exactly?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Including 'my' Christians?
> 
> What makes them 'my' Christians, exactly?



because you're the one currently defending them in this thread.

I know they aren't _literally_ yours.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> The religious leaders prophecised His Coming? Really? Who? Seems to me the 'religious leaders' were too busy killing those Prophets that were prophecising to do any prophecising of their own.  When was the last time you read the Bible?
> 
> And also, meet who's criteria....theirs?



the old testament did the prophecising, and it was the jews book. THEY determined jesus didn't meet the criteria of THE BOOK.

as for nostrodamous, there are plenty of websites that detail his works. you can research them all you want.

so how about your wind argument, care to explain to us why god would have given us such misinformation?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> because you're the one currently defending them in this thread.
> 
> I know they aren't _literally_ yours.



I'm defending Christians in this thread? And who would 'they' be?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> the old testament did the prophecising, and it was the jews book. THEY determined jesus didn't meet the criteria of THE BOOK.




They couldn't have been wrong, now could they? Again, when was the last time you read the Bible? The Old as well as the New?


----------



## baydoll

> as for nostrodamous, there are plenty of websites that detail his works. you can research them all you want.



Actually I have done quite a bit of research on nostrodamous. And I found out that he actually was not a very good prophet in the least. 

I will be out of town until next Tuesday. When I get back, I am going to start a new thread discussing Mr. Nostrodamous and his many many predictions.


----------



## baydoll

> so how about your wind argument, care to explain to us why god would have given us such misinformation?



Actually you didn't post ALL about the wind. 



> Global circulation and wind systems
> Much of the solar energy that the earth receives causes intense heating in the equatorial regions.  This intense heat produces powerful convection in these areas.
> 
> As the warm, moist air rises, it creates a zone of low pressure, clouds, and precipitation along the equator.  As that warm air rises, it eventually reaches the troposphere and can rise no higher.  It spreads outwards towards the poles.
> 
> As it spreads, it cools and sinks back down to the surface at about 30 degrees north and south of the equator.  This sinking air produces areas of higher pressure with drier conditions.
> 
> Many of the world's deserts are located in these high pressure areas, around 30o north and south of the equator.
> Examples?
> Sahara Desert
> Great Victoria Desert, Australia
> Kalahari Desert
> Sonoran Desert
> 
> Some of this air, as it sinks, moves back towards the equator. This air flowing back towards the equator produces what is know as the trade winds.
> 
> The trade winds obtained their name from the sailing ships used in foreign trade, which were called traders. These winds propelled the ships from Europe to the New World.
> 
> The area near the equator where these winds die out is referred to as the doldrums.
> 
> These areas where air rises at the equator, sink at 30 degrees north and south latitude, and then flow back to the equator are known as Hadley cells. Although most of the air that sinks at 30 degrees north and south latitude returns to the equator, some of it continues to move poleward.
> 
> At approximately 60 degrees north and south, this air meets cold polar air. The areas where these air masses meet form polar fronts. The air moving in from the lower latitudes is generally warmer and will rise. It then moves back towards the equator, sinking at about 30 degrees north and south. This sinking air contributes to the high pressure systems located there.
> 
> The circulation cells that form between 30 degrees and 60 degrees north and south are called Ferrel cells.
> 
> Some of the air that rises at the polar fronts continues to move poleward, sinking at the poles and then moving back towards 60 degrees north and south.
> These Hadley cells are weaker than the tropical ones.
> 
> As the air that sinks at these locations flows back along the surface of the earth, it does not flow in a straight north-south path. This flow of air is affected by the Coriolis Effect.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> The Coriolis Effect
> Because of the earth's rotation, any freely moving object or fluid will appear to:
> Turn to the right of its direction of motion in the Northern Hemisphere and
> Turn to the left of its direction of motion in the Southern Hemisphere.
> (For example, note the curved wind arrows in the diagram below.)
> This causes winds to travel clockwise around high pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
> 
> Low pressure winds travel in the opposite direction (counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere).
> 
> Because of the Coriolis Effect, winds traveling along the surface of the earth from 30 - 60 degrees north and south of the equator flow from the west to the east.  These winds are referred to as the westerlies.
> 
> 
> 
> Idealized global circulation
> The air currents moving along the surface of the Earth from the poles (90 degrees) to 60 degrees north and south of the equator, flow from east to west and are referred to as the polar easterlies.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Jet Stream
> The jet streams are the result of the poleward-flowing air at latitudes between 30 - 60 degrees north and south of the equator (westerlies). The speed of this wind may exceed 160 km/hr (or 100 mi/hr).


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Actually you didn't post ALL about the wind.



like i said, why would god have given use such false, or at least incomplete information. the fact of the matter is that a global wind pattern can been observed. Your quote reference the "jet stream" as proof that job was talking about a scientific phenomonon, when in fact, he was just as inaccurate as nostradomous.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> I'm defending Christians in this thread? And who would 'they' be?



you're defending their entire belief structure, so yes, you are defending them.

and 'they' would be christians .... you know, the subject we were talking about.

If you're acting this stupid, then I ask you to stop.

If you're really this stupid, I ask you to pick up some night classes or something.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> you're defending their entire belief structure, so yes, you are defending them.
> 
> and 'they' would be christians .... you know, the subject we were talking about.
> 
> If you're acting this stupid, then I ask you to stop.
> 
> If you're really this stupid, I ask you to pick up some night classes or something.






I am defending the Bible, not a group of people. 

Just because people call themselves 'christians' doesn't always mean it is true.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> like i said, why would god have given use such false, or at least incomplete information. the fact of the matter is that a global wind pattern can been observed. Your quote reference the "jet stream" as proof that job was talking about a scientific phenomonon, when in fact, he was just as inaccurate as nostradomous.



How was it false, tommy? How was it incomplete?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> How was it false, tommy? How was it incomplete?



it only talks about north and south, nothing about a GLOBAL effect, which is clearly what is happening. if there was no spin to the earth, there would be no west to east jet stream.

incomplete in that it does not fully describe the phenomenon


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> I am defending the Bible, not a group of people.
> 
> Just because people call themselves 'christians' doesn't always mean it is true.



and the christian bible is the basis for which group of religious worshipers?

ok, I'm convinced you aren't acting stupid.  Which is a shame because actually being this stupid is just terrible.


----------



## baydoll

> what is most telling to me is that the prophecy you use to describe that your book is right and your god the true one, is a jewish prophecy, the comeing of the messiah. Unfortunately, the jews didn't believe jesus was anything more than a man. as a result, the "cult" that follwed jesus as god was established and eventually was accepted as religion.



If you have read the Old Testament, you would have seen that's precisely   PREDICTED what will happen to the Messiah, that He would be rejected and then killed by His own people:


Psalms 2    


> 2:1
> Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
> 2:2
> The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
> 2:3
> "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us."
> 2:4
> He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.
> 2:5
> Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
> 2:6
> "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."




*
 Note that, despite being rejected, He would still become king.*

Psalm 118:22,23 - The stone which the builders rejected became the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing. [Isaiah 28:16]

*Who were these 'builders'? The Jewish Leaders. *


Isaiah 53:1-12 - Isaiah prophesies one whom men would disbelieve (v1), despise, and reject (v3). He was wounded and bruised for the transgressions of others (v5). He was oppressed and afflicted but did not open His mouth (v7). He was cut off out of the land of the living (v8), his soul was made an offering for sin (v10), he was numbered with the transgressors, and he poured out his soul unto death (v12). 



> 9It will happen in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn. Zechariah 12



Psalms 22:16 is an excellent foretelling of what was to happen to the Messiah...it also tells us where this piercing will be ( Messiah’s hands and feet)


Zechariah 13:7 - The shepherd would be smitten and the sheep scattered. 

You asked: 



> So i ask you, how can jesus be the messiah, if the religious leaders of the religion which prophecized his coming dont believe he meets the criteria?



*These passages say just the opposite of what the Jewish leaders expected. They believed (wrongly) that their Messiah would lead them to great victory over their enemies (they were thinking in worldy terms instead of spiritually) Their own Scriptures said all along that they would reject Him and kill Him. Which is exactly what took place. Then He would become King in spite of their rejection. Again, precisely what had happened. *

John 1:11 says: "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not" .


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> If you have read the Old Testament, you would have seen that's precisely   PREDICTED what will happen to the Messiah, that He would be rejected and then killed by His own people:
> 
> 
> Psalms 2
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Note that, despite being rejected, He would still become king.*
> 
> Psalm 118:22,23 - The stone which the builders rejected became the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing. [Isaiah 28:16]
> 
> *Who were these 'builders'? The Jewish Leaders. *
> 
> 
> Isaiah 53:1-12 - Isaiah prophesies one whom men would disbelieve (v1), despise, and reject (v3). He was wounded and bruised for the transgressions of others (v5). He was oppressed and afflicted but did not open His mouth (v7). He was cut off out of the land of the living (v8), his soul was made an offering for sin (v10), he was numbered with the transgressors, and he poured out his soul unto death (v12).
> 
> 
> 
> Psalms 22:16 is an excellent foretelling of what was to happen to the Messiah...it also tells us where this piercing will be ( Messiah’s hands and feet)
> 
> 
> Zechariah 13:7 - The shepherd would be smitten and the sheep scattered.
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> *These passages say just the opposite of what the Jewish leaders expected. They believed (wrongly) that their Messiah would lead them to great victory over their enemies (they were thinking in worldy terms instead of spiritually) Their own Scriptures said all along that they would reject Him and kill Him. Which is exactly what took place. Then He would become King in spite of their rejection. Again, precisely what had happened. *
> 
> John 1:11 says: "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not" .



two things...

first, these are just a vague as nostradomous' predictions, just about any person who was rejected by the jewish establishment could fit it.

next, jesus would have been privy to these predictions and would have KNOW what they said and what the criteria for the messiah was. THEREFORe he could have easily done certain things just for the effect of seeming like the messiah.


----------



## foodcritic

*reasoning*



baydoll said:


> How was it false, tommy? How was it incomplete?



I like your positions.  Just keep in mind the old saying,  you can't reason with a drunk person.

You are trying to convince them of the details.  They have rejected the whole context.


----------



## Xaquin44

foodcritic said:


> I like your positions.  Just keep in mind the old saying,  you can't reason with a drunk person.
> 
> You are trying to convince them of the details.  They have rejected the whole context.



actually, tommy had the details.  which showed the 'bible prophecy' and/or 'scientific discovery' (haha) completely inaccurate.

I know it's akin to talking to a (somehow) retarded brick wall, but, try to follow along.


----------



## tommyjones

foodcritic said:


> I like your positions.  Just keep in mind the old saying,  you can't reason with a drunk person.
> 
> You are trying to convince them of the details.  They have rejected the whole context.



actually she posted the details of the scientific theory AND the quoted prophecy, i just pointed out the inconsistancies


----------



## baydoll

> first, these are just a vague as nostradomous' predictions



Oh? How are they vague? 

I asked this of Xaquin to which I have yet to receive an answer from, perhaps you'd like to answer it? 




Can you predict the exact city in which the birth of a future US president would take place 700 years from now?

Can you predict the precise kind of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience a thousand years from today?

Can you also predict a new method of execution not currently known, one that wouldn't even be invented for another hundreds of years in the future?

Can you predict the SPECIFIC date of the appearance of some great future leader hundreds of years in advance?

Can you predict 50 SPECIFIC prophecies about some man in the future we would never meet, and have that man fulfill ALL 50 PREDICTIONS?

And out of those 50 SPECIFIC predictions, can you predict that 25 of them were about what OTHER people will do to that man which will be completely beyond his control?

Answer me if you will, O Wise Prophet One.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Oh? How are they vague?
> 
> I asked this of Xaquin to which I have yet to receive an answer from, perhaps you'd like to answer it?




I answered ....



baydoll said:


> Can you predict the exact city in which the birth of a future US president would take place 700 years from now?
> 
> Can you predict the precise kind of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience a thousand years from today?
> 
> Can you also predict a new method of execution not currently known, one that wouldn't even be invented for another hundreds of years in the future?
> 
> Can you predict the SPECIFIC date of the appearance of some great future leader hundreds of years in advance?
> 
> Can you predict 50 SPECIFIC prophecies about some man in the future we would never meet, and have that man fulfill ALL 50 PREDICTIONS?
> 
> And out of those 50 SPECIFIC predictions, can you predict that 25 of them were about what OTHER people will do to that man which will be completely beyond his control?
> 
> Answer me if you will, O Wise Prophet One.



I can make vague self fulfilling prophecies every day.  Also, when dealing with stories, it's pretty darn easy to make prophecies.  Example: I write a story about a guy exploring a cave.  I say in the beginning that the guy dies at the end.  At the end, the guy dies.

GOODNESS ME, I MUST BE A PROPHET!


----------



## baydoll

> just about any person who was rejected by the jewish establishment could fit it



Oh? 

Let see how easy that would be, shall we?

After you answer the above, please answer how easy it would be to:

"arrange" to be born in a specific family;

"arrange" in advance to have his parents give birth to him in a specific city, and to make things a little 'easier' in a city which is not their own? 

"arrange" to be virgin born;

"orchestrate" his own death, including being put to death by the strange method of crucifixion;

"arrange' to be put to death not alone but with specifically two criminals; 

"arrange" to have his executioners gamble for his clothes during said execution;

"arrange" to be betrayed for a specific amount of money (30 pieces of silver to be exact);

"arrange" to be betrayed by a friend;

"plan" in advance that his executioners will cary out their regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims beside him but not his;

how could he possible escape from the grave and appear to people after he has been killed?


It might be possible to fake one or two of these predictions, but how possible is it to fulfill ALL of those predictions in advance?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Oh? How are they vague?
> 
> I asked this of Xaquin to which I have yet to receive an answer from, perhaps you'd like to answer it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you predict the exact city in which the birth of a future US president would take place 700 years from now?
> 
> Can you predict the precise kind of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience a thousand years from today?
> 
> Can you also predict a new method of execution not currently known, one that wouldn't even be invented for another hundreds of years in the future?
> 
> Can you predict the SPECIFIC date of the appearance of some great future leader hundreds of years in advance?
> 
> Can you predict 50 SPECIFIC prophecies about some man in the future we would never meet, and have that man fulfill ALL 50 PREDICTIONS?
> 
> And out of those 50 SPECIFIC predictions, can you predict that 25 of them were about what OTHER people will do to that man which will be completely beyond his control?
> 
> Answer me if you will, O Wise Prophet One.



why dont you list the supposed propecies related to each of these so that i can rebuke them or show just how vague they really are?

its just an easier way to handle it.

I know that the bible doesn't contain specific prophecies, at least none more specific than nostrodamous, i have read it, and was raised a christian.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Oh?
> 
> Let see how easy that would be, shall we?
> 
> After you answer the above, please answer how easy it would be to:
> 
> "arrange" to be born in a specific family;
> 
> "arrange" in advance to have his parents give birth to him in a specific city, and to make things a little 'easier' in a city which is not their own?
> 
> "arrange" to be virgin born;
> 
> "orchestrate" his own death, including being put to death by the strange method of crucifixion;
> 
> "arrange' to be put to death not alone but with specifically two criminals;
> 
> "arrange" to have his executioners gamble for his clothes during said execution;
> 
> "arrange" to be betrayed for a specific amount of money (30 pieces of silver to be exact);
> 
> "arrange" to be betrayed by a friend;
> 
> "plan" in advance that his executioners will cary out their regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims beside him but not his;
> 
> how could he possible escape from the grave and appear to people after he has been killed?
> 
> 
> It might be possible to fake one or two of these predictions, but how possible is it to fulfill ALL of those predictions in advance?



I could make a story that fits all of those.

Only my guy would be called 'Brian'


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> I answered ....
> 
> 
> 
> I can make vague self fulfilling prophecies every day.  Also, when dealing with stories, it's pretty darn easy to make prophecies.  Example: I write a story about a guy exploring a cave.  I say in the beginning that the guy dies at the end.  At the end, the guy dies.
> 
> GOODNESS ME, I MUST BE A PROPHET!




Add precise specific details concerning that man and then have it actually happen and then you might have something there.


----------



## baydoll

> I could make a story that fits all of those.



Yeah you could but does it actually come true?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Add precise specific details concerning that man and then have it actually happen and then you might have something there.



oohhh you can prove the bible!

you should tell a news network.  No one else has ever been able to.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Yeah you could but does it actually come true?



as much as the bible can be proven to come true, sure.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Oh?
> 
> Let see how easy that would be, shall we?
> 
> After you answer the above, please answer how easy it would be to:
> 
> "arrange" to be born in a specific family; could you please provide evidence NOT IN THE BIBLE to support the family claim
> 
> "arrange" in advance to have his parents give birth to him in a specific city, and to make things a little 'easier' in a city which is not their own? If the specific city was known, why did the wise men have to follow a star? why didn't they just go and wait for him to be born
> 
> "arrange" to be virgin born; mary made it up to cover for her indescretions
> 
> "orchestrate" his own death, including being put to death by the strange method of crucifixion; Jesus knew that the method of execution was crucifixtion, he purposefully commited a crime in the temple fully knowing he would be prosecuted. so it was easy
> 
> "arrange' to be put to death not alone but with specifically two criminals;
> 
> "arrange" to have his executioners gamble for his clothes during said execution; you will have to show me where this is prophecised
> 
> "arrange" to be betrayed for a specific amount of money (30 pieces of silver to be exact); again show me where this was prophecized
> 
> "arrange" to be betrayed by a friend;again show me where this was prophecized
> 
> "plan" in advance that his executioners will cary out their regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims beside him but not his;again show me where this was prophecized
> 
> how could he possible escape from the grave and appear to people after he has been killed? again show me where this was prophecized, and show independant proof- not from the christian bible- that shows this happened
> 
> 
> It might be possible to fake one or two of these predictions, but how possible is it to fulfill ALL of those predictions in advance?




answeres and questions in red


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> why dont you list the supposed propecies related to each of these so that i can rebuke them or show just how vague they really are?



Alrighty then! 

Here are just a few:


Psalms 22:



> 14 I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death. 16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced 18 My hands and My feet; 17 I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. 18 They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.





> Mark 15
> 15:24
> And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take.





> Matthew 27
> 27:31
> And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.
> 27:32
> Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross.
> 27:33
> And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull,
> 27:34
> they gave Him sour F155 wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink.
> 27:35
> Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, F156 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: "They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." F157
> 27:36
> Sitting down, they kept watch over Him there.
> 27:37
> And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
> 27:38
> Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left.



Betrayed by a friend:



> Psalms 41
> 41:9
> Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.




John 13     
13:21


> When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me."



Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver:


Zechariah 11:12


> Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.



Matthew 26    
26:15
and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver.  


The 30 pieces of silver thrown in the temple:



> Zechariah 11
> 11:13
> And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.





> Matthew 27    27:5
> Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.



Spat upon, smitten and scourged:



> Isaiah 50
> 50:6
> I gave My back to those who struck Me, And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.






> Matthew 27     27:26
> Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.





> 27:30
> Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head.




No bones broken:



> Psalms 34
> 34:20
> He guards all his bones; Not one of them is broken.





> Numbers 9
> 9:12
> They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.






> John 19
> 19:33
> But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.
> 19:34
> But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
> 19:35
> And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.
> 19:36
> For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "Not one of His bones shall be broken."




Pierced:



> Zechariah 12
> 12:10
> "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.





> John 19
> 19:34
> But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.




Buried with the rich:



> Isaiah 53
> 53:9
> And they  made His grave with the wicked-- But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth.





> Matthew 27
> 57 Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given to him. 59 When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed.



There are many many more but I am really pressed for time...

I am hoping to be able to go into further detail of this when I get back from my vacation.


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Are Bats really birds? (Leviticus 11:13)
> 
> Rabbits chew a Cud? (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)
> 
> Is the Mustard seed the smallest seed? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Mustard seed grow into a tree? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Earth Move ? (Hebrews 1:10)



What eva. 

Edited to add: I will gladly answer all the above. I am getting ready to go out of town for a few days and am really really pressed for time, folks!


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> as much as the bible can be proven to come true, sure.




So please do! I will be waiting!


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> answeres and questions in red



tommy, I will be out of town for the next few days. 

I will gladly answer your questions when I get back. 

Thanks for being such a sweetie-pie!


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> -this and that-



wow!  imagine that!

self fulfilling prophecy!

incredible!


----------



## marv1

Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies.  It would be quite time consuming for anyone to list them all.


----------



## Xaquin44

marv1 said:


> Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies.  It would be quite time consuming for anyone to list them all.



Edit!

I myself have fulfilled over 1,000 prophecies.  Jesus was a lightweight.


----------



## marv1

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."  Matthew 7:13-14.


----------



## Xaquin44

"So it shall come to pass that 2,000 years from now people shall skew actual meanings and justify wrongly whilst acting holier then thou and being general pricks" Xaquin 16:40


----------



## marv1

I must have made a mistake.  I thought this was a religious forum where mature discussions would take place regarding...ugh religion.


----------



## Xaquin44

boy were you misinformed.

seriously though, you started it.

random loosely pertaining bible quotes mean nothing.  It's not even a discussion when you pop in a random quote and say nothing.

edit: let's look closer at your first few posts.

1: Statement claiming something, and supplying no evidence or sources to back it up.

2: Random bible quote with no explanation or context.

3: Thinly veiled jab at me for my posts poking fun at you.

your posts aren't (as of yet) exactly discussion worthy, in that there is nothing to discuss about them.  Add your own opinions or at least put them in some kind of context and we'll get this show on the road.


----------



## marv1

Wow,  am I impressed.  I guess I am in the right place.  You guys are hilarious.  The reason I quoted Matthew 7 was because I initially thought that you (after reading several of your comments prior to this) could care less about Christ or His word.  Your use of derogatory terms when you don't like what is written led me to believe as such.  Therefore, Matthew 7 was my way of saying that there are only two choices regarding Christ; either you believe or you don't.  You appeared to be in the don't category. A person, such as Baydoll can only do so much to convince you of Christ, his existence, the truth of the God inspired word, his fulfillment of prophecy, and on and on and on.  I, believing that you are in the "don't" category, wanted you to ponder the words of Matthew 7.  Apparently you did but only for a moment before you attacked me.  Hmmm...is it me you are attacking? That is also debatable.  Do I care if you are in the "don't" category?  Of course, however the word says in Matthew 13:13, "...because seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."  You can beat some people over the head with the bible and no matter what evidence you share with them, or the testimonies, they still choose to not believe.  I hope that is not you.  But if it is, I will share this last thought with you.  Christ died for you so that you could have everlasting life.  He loved you and me that much.


----------



## Xaquin44

marv1 said:


> But if it is, I will share this last thought with you.  Christ died for you so that you could have everlasting life.  He loved you and me that much.



actually, I believe Christ died nearly 2,000 years before I was born.

If he died for the people way back when, that's between them and him.


----------



## This_person

marv1 said:


> I must have made a mistake.  I thought this was a religious forum where mature discussions would take place regarding...ugh religion.


People that try and use the religion forum for fellowship are quickly inundated with unsolicited critical comments.

Though they ask for proof, they've yet to provide any proof, by the same standards, for any of their positions.  They like to poke meaningless holes instead of join in the spirit of the conversation, or simply mind their own business.  Read any thread, even many of the "please pray for...." threads, and they quickly turn nasty against people of faith.


----------



## baydoll

foodcritic said:


> I like your positions.




Thanks, foodcritic!




> Just keep in mind the old saying,  you can't reason with a drunk person.



And I'm beginning to see just how 'drunk' they are, too, sadly. Seems as if old 'Screwtape' has them firmly entrenced in his camp, doesn't it. 



> You are trying to convince them of the details.  They have rejected the whole context.    :buddies




Yes I'm beginning to realize that as well, unfortunetly.

Reminds me of the hardheaded and stubborn Pharasees who STILL rejected Jesus EVEN after He showed them miracle after miracle...

They still would not believe.


----------



## baydoll

marv1 said:


> I must have made a mistake.  I thought this was a religious forum where mature discussions would take place regarding...ugh religion.



Ignore them, Marv.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Reminds me of the hardheaded and stubborn Pharasees who STILL rejected Jesus EVEN after He showed them miracle after miracle...
> 
> They still would not believe.



you making poorly backed up and/or completely false statements hardly qualifies as a miracle.  In fact, there is hardly a comparison, unless it went like: jesus performed many miracles. It would be a miracle if baydoll would read an actual history book or garner some common sense.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Ignore them, Marv.



much like many people here ignore fact.

(note: I am not one of these)


----------



## baydoll

Are Bats really birds? (Leviticus 11:13)

Rabbits chew a Cud? (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)

Is the Mustard seed the smallest seed? (Mathew 13:32)

Does the Mustard seed grow into a tree? (Mathew 13:32)

Does the Earth Move ? (Hebrews 1:10)
__________________

Are bats really birds? I'll start with that one. 

The book of Leviticus was written for the Israelites. It was also written in plain language that THEY would understand.  It lists rules for them to follow such as what animals were 'clean' or 'not clean' to eat.  With that in mind, let me ask you a question: how would those people back then KNOW that the bat was not a bird?


----------



## baydoll

I'll be back later....I have some work that needs to be done this morning but will try and answer the remaining questions later, God willing. 

Have a good morning, everyone.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Are Bats really birds? (Leviticus 11:13)
> 
> Rabbits chew a Cud? (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)
> 
> Is the Mustard seed the smallest seed? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Mustard seed grow into a tree? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Earth Move ? (Hebrews 1:10)
> __________________
> 
> Are bats really birds? I'll start with that one.
> 
> The book of Leviticus was written for the Israelites. It was also written in plain language that THEY would understand.  It lists rules for them to follow such as what animals were 'clean' or 'not clean' to eat.  With that in mind, let me ask you a question: how would those people back then KNOW that the bat was not a bird?



....

hair would be a pretty good indication ....


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> you making poorly backed up and/or completely false statements hardly qualifies as a miracle.  In fact, there is hardly a comparison, unless it went like: jesus performed many miracles. It would be a miracle if baydoll would read an actual history book or garner some common sense.




And I love you too, sweetie!


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> I'll be back later....I have some work that needs to be done this morning but will try and answer the remaining questions later, God willing.
> 
> Have a good morning, everyone.



why bother?  you're always wrong, and when it's pointed out with factual evidence to back it up you just ignore it.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> And I love you too, sweetie!



I doubt that.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Are Bats really birds? (Leviticus 11:13)
> 
> Rabbits chew a Cud? (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)
> 
> Is the Mustard seed the smallest seed? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Mustard seed grow into a tree? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Earth Move ? (Hebrews 1:10)
> __________________
> 
> Are bats really birds? I'll start with that one.
> 
> The book of Leviticus was written for the Israelites. It was also written in plain language that THEY would understand.  It lists rules for them to follow such as what animals were 'clean' or 'not clean' to eat.  With that in mind, let me ask you a question: *how would those people back then KNOW that the bat was not a bird*?



the same way they would have known a flying fish isn't a bird. 

Besides, GOD KNEW, why would he give them false information?


and you promised to answer all the questions i had about your post last week, but i am still waiting.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> That comment is beneath you, and not very Christian. The original Thread Creator asked questions, and were answered (link).  Whenever theres been a call for fellowship, its been left alone.  Its when the call is "Can you believe the idiocy of what/how _(Insert other Belief/Faith/Religion here)_ believe", or when a poster makes a post against a different religion, while ignoring and excusing the violence in that exists in his own. Or, as in this case, when a Thread Poster issues a Solicitation about what a passage means.


Now, come on; you know that this thread was begun with the intent of like-minded fellowship, not 

Xaquin44 said:


> not much, as it's fiction ....


 -or-​


Nucklesack said:


> Man on Man love is bad, but banging your daughters is good


(you still haven't answered where the passage is that even implies your statement here, by the way.  This is what I mean by baseless attacks)

Thus, my comment was neither non-Christian-like, nor beneath me.  It was simply a statement of fact.





> The entire premise of your Belief is Faith in a 2000 year old book, created by Committee and translated/mistranslated numerous times.  Your instruction manual wasnt even understood by the People at the time.
> 
> The entire premise of your belief, in the Bible requires you to look through rose colored glasses, when you point out errors you can expect :
> 
> Of course when you ask, "how can you emphatically trust the accuracy of a document when you KNOW it is replete with errors" or "what makes allows you to trust the trustworthiness of a book when even you can admit there are mistranslations in it. Should make you wonder about the infallabity of a document you KNOW is rife with errors".
> That one is covered too
> 
> Belief/Faith gives comfort in the absence of Facts
> 
> That is your entire defense against Science, a 2000 year old, many times, mistranslated Book that requires you to have Faith in believing.  If it was presented today, would be ridiculed for its idiocy (and why should that be? would it be any less holy today than 2000 years ago?).
> 
> You continue to ask or try to compare a Belief in Logic and Tests (to support Facts) versus a Belief in Faith.  You fail to understand they are 2 disparate items and there isnt a comparison.


This is not true.  The OT was a God inspired series of books on history (not complete history, just the stuff you need to know).  The NT is a series of books from the point of view of people who were there, or the letters they wrote about it.

While it's good to see you write that there is an absence of any facts toward any other explaination, I think that was just a Freudian slip on your part.  You write there there is a "defense against science"....  where does that come from.  Science and religion do not oppose one another.  Indeed, every archeological exploration, every facet of scientific discovery has only gone to either prove the veracity of the Biblical stories, or, worst case, be meaningless to them.  I'm not a young earther, and I don't understand that philosophy - you can't get there without the word "assume" somewhere in the explaination of how they come up with the dates, and that takes it right out of the water, for me.


----------



## Kain99

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company
I'd like to see the world for once
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills "Ah, peace throughout the land"

Have Coke People!


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> While i'm glad that you arent a New Earther (its actually scary that the belief is still prevalant, and that those on here, who's job it is to Teach Children History do believe in it), it doesnt change the fact that you do try to Equate Science with Theology.  You did it in the last couple of sentences in your above screed.


"Screed"?  

I don't claim to NOT equate science with theology.  In many cases, the similarities are quite astounding.

When it comes to how a hummingbird flies, or how an internal combustion engine works, theology is outclassed by science, because it's not even trying to figure those things out.  But, when it comes to the origins of the universe, the origins of life, etc., theology and science are on even footing.  No one knows for sure, no one CAN know for sure, and everyone claims to have the only possible answer.  No one can prove their answer, mind you, without esoteric examples of things that don't really apply, but make the person believe what they believe.  Evolution and creation both do not pass the common sense test, yet they're the two biggest competing answers.  The Big Bang and Genesis say the same damned thing, but people argue over which one is correct.  When held to the same standards of proof, testing, peer review, etc., neither one could possibly be held as a scientific study - but one is, because it doesn't assume (directly) a supreme being.  That's really the only difference between the two competing thoughts.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> the same way they would have known a flying fish isn't a bird.
> 
> Besides, GOD KNEW, why would he give them false information?
> 
> 
> .



You are missing the point.  

Of course GOD KNEW bats are not birds but did the Israelites know this information about them? 

Why write something to which they had no clue to what He was referring to? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? 




> and you promised to answer all the questions i had about your post last week, but i am still waiting



I don't recall using the word Promise, dude. Even so, did you not read the part where I said I am going away for a few days and will try and get back to answering your questions when I get back? 

I guess not. 

If you noticed, I have more than a few questions to answer and I really don't have the time to get to them all today, sweetie. 

I am trying my best, though. In the meantime, chill out, Impatient One!


----------



## baydoll

Kain99 said:


> I'd like to teach the world to sing
> In perfect harmony
> I'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company
> I'd like to see the world for once
> All standing hand in hand
> And hear them echo through the hills "Ah, peace throughout the land"
> 
> Have Coke People!




Um that would be the EMERGENT Church, Hon.


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> So a 2000 year old book, collaberated by committee, had to use falsities in order to get its point across?
> 
> Why would Jesus, who knows everything right, think that the readership of the bible (millions of people through the centuries) would never find out a Bat was a Bird?
> 
> Or was the bible only written for the people 2000 years ago? And if the people then didnt know a Bat wasnt a Bird, then Jesus also would never have known.
> 
> So the simpler explanation is that Jesus didn't know Bats were not Birds, rather than just decide claim a mistake to the ignorant people of the time.



How was it false? 


The Bible never claimed to be scientific description of modern biological categories . On the contrary, it is often written from the perspective of what we see....in other words, it makes generic categorizations. The bat is categorized as a bird because why? It FLIES and it is similiar in size to birds. 

Back when the Torah was written, it was perfectly logical to call it a bird, they had no problem seeing what God meant considering they did not have the information YOU do and had a totally different classification system. They categorized ALL flying animals as birds. If that's the category they used, then they are correct. THEY were the ones to which God was written that rule for not you for your mind is totally closed off to Him anyway. 

YOU have imposed your modern system of language and categorization on THEM. If they were to come back today, they would laugh at what YOU perceive the bat to be. A mammal, not a bird.


----------



## baydoll

okay, lunch over. I've got to get back to work, all. 

See you later! 

And yes, Aquin, I do love you, sweetie! Whether you like it or not.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> Of course GOD KNEW bats are not birds but did the Israelites know this information about them?
> 
> Why write something to which they had no clue to what He was referring to? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?



yeah, why tell the truth ....

they would have had a clue if he had told them ....

of course proper classification is not nearly as scientific as noting that there are lots of stars in the sky ....


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> okay, lunch over. I've got to get back to work, all.
> 
> See you later!
> 
> And yes, Aquin, I do love you, sweetie! Whether you like it or not.



that's really creepy.  please try to stop =/


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> If they were to come back today, they would laugh at what YOU perceive the bat to be. A mammal, not a bird.



and they would be wrong anyway.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> and they would be wrong anyway.



Missing the point.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> that's really creepy.  please try to stop =/




Oh don't worry. I don't love you THAT way, yuck. 

I happen to care about what happens to you. Otherwise I would not be here. 

Do you think I want to be here talking to the likes of you?


----------



## marv1

Hello Baydoll,

I went back to your original post to see how all of this discussion started.  I think Luke 17:26 is a foreshadowing of tribulation.  It is an example to us that while many don't believe today (they didn't believe Noah either) that the time will come when we will have to deal with all that has been noted in the book of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel etc.  And, just as it was in the Days of Noah, people will continue on with their lives when suddenly they will be faced with such tribulations as never before seen.  It is also possible that Luke 17:26 is also a foreshadowing of the rapture.  Eight people were spared the anguish of drowning because they believed and acted on that belief. They were there for the beginning of tribulation but did not have to endure it. However, Enoch was translated prior to the flood.  So perhaps he is representative of the rapture and the 8 represent those who will endure to the end of tribulation.  

What's your thought on this?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> Of course GOD KNEW bats are not birds but did the Israelites know this information about them?
> they would have IF GOD had told them. pretty simple really, if GOD was doing the talking he would have stated the truth, not a falsehood. GOD being all powerful would have had no problem putting it in terms that they could understnad
> 
> Why write something to which they had no clue to what He was referring to? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?
> 
> so telling them somehting they dont already know defeats the purpose of enlightenment?
> 
> 
> I don't recall using the word Promise, dude. Even so, did you not read the part where I said I am going away for a few days and will try and get back to answering your questions when I get back?
> 
> I guess not.
> 
> If you noticed, I have more than a few questions to answer and I really don't have the time to get to them all today, sweetie.
> 
> I am trying my best, though. In the meantime, chill out, Impatient One!




you said that last week, and have posted a butt load of times since. just seems disengenuous to me.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> you said that last week, and have posted a butt load of times since. just seems disengenuous to me.



Tommy. Unlike the majority of you whom seem to live here, I have a life outside of this forum. And a busy one at that. I am doing the best I can under the circumstances. 




> could you please provide evidence NOT IN THE BIBLE to support the family claim?



Prove that He wasn't born into that family.


----------



## baydoll

Unto your next question which was 



> If the specific city was known, why did the wise men have to follow a star?



I take it you haven't read Matthew 2:1-9....



> Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,
> 
> saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him."
> 
> When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
> 
> And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
> 
> *So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
> 
> 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.' " *
> 
> Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared.
> 
> And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also."
> 
> When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.






> why didn't they just go and wait for him to be born



Nowhere did it predict WHEN He would be born.


----------



## baydoll

> mary made it up to cover for her indescretions



Oh? And you know this how?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Tommy. Unlike the majority of you whom seem to live here, I have a life outside of this forum. And a busy one at that. I am doing the best I can under the circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that He wasn't born into that family.



so you cant..... i see.


Baydoll, unlike the majority of the sheep who sit next to you in church on sunday blindly accepting things they KNOW to be flase, i use critical thinking. Therefore, i do not accept a prophet (or gods son) for which the ONLY PROOF of his divinity is in the book written by his followers. (thats kind of like asking david koresh's followers if he was gods son, they obviously thought so or they wouldn't have been in the cult.

If you can show me independant evidence of YOUR CLAIMS, i would be interested to read them.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Oh? And you know this how?



well if we start with what we know- women can not become pregnant (at least not with a male child) without having sex the burden of proving anythig else falls to the person making the claims.

Let me ask you this.
if your daughter turned up pregnant and swore she was inpregnated through immaculate conception as she remained a virgin, would you believe?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> so you cant..... i see.
> 
> 
> Baydoll, unlike the majority of the sheep who sit next to you in church on sunday blindly accepting things they KNOW to be flase, i use critical thinking. Therefore, i do not accept a prophet (or gods son) for which the ONLY PROOF of his divinity is in the book written by his followers. (thats kind of like asking david koresh's followers if he was gods son, they obviously thought so or they wouldn't have been in the cult.
> 
> If you can show me independant evidence of YOUR CLAIMS, i would be interested to read them.




Tommy, for one thing, I don't 'go' to a 'church' and number two, how do you KNOW 'they' and by 'they' I mean TRUE CHRISTIANS not these fakes that call themselves Christians but aren't  are false? Prove to me by YOUR CLAIMS that what the Bible says is false and I would be interested to read them as well . 

As for independant evidence, I will have to dig them up for you...this takes some time to which I don't really have much of right now.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> well if we start with what we know- women can not become pregnant (at least not with a male child) without having sex the burden of proving anythig else falls to the person making the claims.



Precisely. Not many people believed Mary. You are one of many. 



> Let me ask you this.
> if your daughter turned up pregnant and swore she was inpregnated through immaculate conception as she remained a virgin, would you believe



Let me ask you this. 
Did you know that the Jews were waiting for their Messiah to be born to a Virgin?


----------



## baydoll

I will try and get that information to you later, Tommy. 

I really am trying. I just got back from vacation and I am playing catch up here at work.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Tommy, for one thing, I don't 'go' to a 'church' and number two, how do you KNOW 'they' and by 'they' *I mean TRUE CHRISTIANS not these fakes that call themselves Christians but aren't  are false*? Prove to me by YOUR CLAIMS that what the Bible says is false and I would be interested to read them as well .
> 
> As for independant evidence, I will have to dig them up for you...this takes some time to which I don't really have much of right now.



funny that you are so wise you get to decide even which christians are true and false

bwhahahahaha

yeah, independant evidence. not written by someone with an agenda, you know, an agenda of trying to sell their new cult to the masses.

otherwise it would be like me holding up the book of mormon to prove the claims of mormonism.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Precisely. Not many people believed Mary. You are one of many.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this.
> Did you know that the Jews were waiting for their Messiah to be born to a Virgin?



and did you know that the very same Jews did not believe that mary bore the son of god?

so you wouldn't believe that story from your own flesh and blood, but you are willing to accept it about an unwed mother from 2000 years ago?


----------



## Xaquin44

of course she would .... it was written .... in a book!


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> and did you know that the very same Jews did not believe that mary bore the son of god?




But of course! This was predicted as well. 

You should know this....considering how you are such an expert on it. 




> so you wouldn't believe that story from your own flesh and blood, but you are willing to accept it about an unwed mother from 2000 years ago



If I were Mary's mother and was a Jew and knew my Old Testament I would.


----------



## baydoll

Non-Christian References to Jesus:

Christian CADRE--Answering Skeptics


Christian CADRE--Answering Skeptics


Christian CADRE--Answering Skeptics

That's some, there are many more if you are interested.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Non-Christian References to Jesus:
> 
> Christian CADRE--Answering Skeptics
> 
> 
> Christian CADRE--Answering Skeptics
> 
> 
> Christian CADRE--Answering Skeptics
> 
> That's some, there are many more if you are interested.




you have quoted a series of essays, not independant facts or historical references.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> But of course! This was predicted as well.
> 
> You should know this....considering how you are such an expert on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were Mary's mother and was a Jew and knew my Old Testament I would.



well then why didn't the jews of the time?

and this is just one of the many inconsistancies, or falsehoods that you gladly accept in order to allow your fairytale to exist.

the only people of the time that attest to jesus' greatness or supremity were followers of the christian cult, the rest were skeptical


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll, you do know what a self fulfilling prophecy is right?


----------



## baydoll

Gamble His clothes during said execution; 

You will have to show me where this was prophecised: 

 Old:

 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. (Psalms 22:17-18)

New:

And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves, casting lots; and sitting down, they began to keep watch over Him there. (Matthew 27:35-36)


Portrayed for a specific amount of money: 

You will have to show me where this was prophecised: 

Old:

And I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. (Zechariah 11:12)

New:

Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said, "What are you willing to give me to deliver Him up to you?" And they weighed out to him thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:14-15)


Arranged to be portrayed by a friend: 

Old: 

Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalms 41:9)

For it is not an enemy who reproaches me, Then I could bear it; Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me, Then I could hide myself from him. But it is you, a man my equal, My companion and my familiar friend. (Psalms 55:12-13)

"And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will say,' Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' (Zechariah 13:6)


New:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor." While He was still speaking, behold, a multitude came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke 22:47-48)

And immediately he went to Jesus and said, "Hail, Rabbi!" and kissed Him. And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him. (Matthew 26:49-50)



Breaking the legs of the victim beside Him but not His: 

Old:

He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. (Psalms 34:20)

New:

The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs;... For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." (John 19:32, 33, 36)

His Resurrection after the third day:

Old:

Hosea 6:2 (NIV) After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

Matthew 12:40 (NIV) For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Show independent proof:

THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT 
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."   (Josh McDowell) 

Arrange to be put to death on a Cross; Jesus knew that the method of execution was crucifiction, he purposefully commited a crime in the temple fully knowing he would be prosecuted. So it was easy.

My thoughts: You are right. He could have done that and yes it would have been easy for Him to do so…but how do you explain all the other variables involved?

Now it's your turn: Please provide evidence that Jesus didn't do any of the above.


----------



## baydoll

marv1 said:


> Hello Baydoll,
> 
> I went back to your original post to see how all of this discussion started.  I think Luke 17:26 is a foreshadowing of tribulation.  It is an example to us that while many don't believe today (they didn't believe Noah either) that the time will come when we will have to deal with all that has been noted in the book of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel etc.  And, just as it was in the Days of Noah, people will continue on with their lives when suddenly they will be faced with such tribulations as never before seen.  It is also possible that Luke 17:26 is also a foreshadowing of the rapture.  Eight people were spared the anguish of drowning because they believed and acted on that belief. They were there for the beginning of tribulation but did not have to endure it. However, Enoch was translated prior to the flood.  So perhaps he is representative of the rapture and the 8 represent those who will endure to the end of tribulation.
> 
> What's your thought on this?




EXACTLY!! You've nailed it brilliantly what I think. 

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to convey! I was hoping that SOMEONE on here might be remotely interested in the 'things' of great importance and of great value (like their souls and the souls of their loved ones) other than the  silly, vain, frivolous EMPTY 'things' of this world. 

Guess I was wrong.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> Edit!
> 
> I myself have fulfilled over 1,000 prophecies.  Jesus was a lightweight.




Can you prophecy what will happen to you after you die?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Gamble His clothes during said execution;
> 
> You will have to show me where this was prophecised:
> 
> Old:
> 
> I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. (Psalms 22:17-18)
> it was most likely the custom to divey up people stuff when they were dead
> New:
> 
> And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves, casting lots; and sitting down, they began to keep watch over Him there. (Matthew 27:35-36)
> 
> 
> Portrayed for a specific amount of money:
> 
> You will have to show me where this was prophecised:
> 
> Old:
> 
> And I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. (Zechariah 11:12)
> 
> That doesn't say "And they paid him 30 for betraying jesus, gods son
> 
> New:
> 
> Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said, "What are you willing to give me to deliver Him up to you?" And they weighed out to him thirty pieces of silver. (Matthew 26:14-15)
> 
> 
> Arranged to be portrayed by a friend:
> 
> Old:
> 
> Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. (Psalms 41:9)
> 
> For it is not an enemy who reproaches me, Then I could bear it; Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me, Then I could hide myself from him. But it is you, a man my equal, My companion and my familiar friend. (Psalms 55:12-13)
> 
> "And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will say,' Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' (Zechariah 13:6)
> 
> where are these wounds adressed in the new testament?
> New:
> 
> The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor." While He was still speaking, behold, a multitude came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke 22:47-48)
> 
> And immediately he went to Jesus and said, "Hail, Rabbi!" and kissed Him. And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him. (Matthew 26:49-50)
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking the legs of the victim beside Him but not His:
> 
> Old:
> 
> He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. (Psalms 34:20)
> you are reading an awful lot into one line, what is the context?
> New:
> 
> The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs;... For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." (John 19:32, 33, 36)
> 
> His Resurrection after the third day:
> 
> Old:
> 
> Hosea 6:2 (NIV) After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
> 
> Matthew 12:40 (NIV) For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
> so you are saying it is just as likely that jesus was resurrected as it is that jonah actually spent 3 days and nights inside a giant fish, err a whale, but that isn't a fish
> 
> Show independent proof:
> 
> THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
> Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."   (Josh McDowell)
> 
> Arrange to be put to death on a Cross; Jesus knew that the method of execution was crucifiction, he purposefully commited a crime in the temple fully knowing he would be prosecuted. So it was easy.
> 
> My thoughts: You are right. He could have done that and yes it would have been easy for Him to do so…but how do you explain all the other variables involved?



wow, your independant proof is a tertiary quote. you do realize that you have some josh guy saying something was said by some english scholar who is saying something was said by ol' tommy there, right? And even if we were to accept what they say tom arnold said is true, he was living in the late 17- early 1800's and is know for starting the "broad church party" in the church of england. agian, hardly an independant or nonbiased resource.


look at the red for the rest


----------



## baydoll

So show me independent evidence proving otherwise, Tommy.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> So show me independent evidence proving otherwise, Tommy.



jesus is dead, just like every other person who ever walked the earth.

there you have it.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Can you prophecy what will happen to you after you die?



yup.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Can you prophecy what will happen to you after you die?



me too.

the machine will direct its apendages to divide my parts, casting them in all directions to be taken up by others. after which my body will be turned to dust and scattered for all eternity. ooooooooo scary


(seriously, i am an organ doner and will be cremated, it aint that hard)


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> jesus is dead, just like every other person who ever walked the earth.
> 
> there you have it.



And you know this how?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> yup.




And it is?


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> You cant prove a negative.  The onus isnt on us isnt to Prove that Jesus was (some form of) a God.



Says who? 





> You must prove, with independent evidence (the Bible isnt) that not only did Jesus exist (which he may have) but that he was also the Son of God, and Not a Koresh clone



And you must prove, without being bias, that Jesus didn't exist and He wasn't the Son of God.


----------



## Xaquin44

edit: whoops lol



baydoll said:


> And it is?



I cease to walk around anymore.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> And you know this how?



because unlike family guy, jesus isn't walking the earth.

if he was alive, but isn't anymore, HE IS DEAD. just like every other person who ever walked the earth.
If he IS RISEN, where the eff is he, cuz he isn't walking the earth.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Says who?



common sense .... logic ....

oh ah ha ha ha

forgot who I was talking to for a sec lol


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> edit: whoops lol
> 
> 
> 
> I cease to walk around anymore.



Well how about I give it a shot about what will happens to you after you die....


If I'm wrong and God doesn't exist and the Bible is really just a bunch of fairy tale, then you (and I ) will cease to exist. I have nothing to lose. But at least the last part of my life was much MUCH better than the first part and I will die a happy, peaceful, contented soul.   Can you say the same? 


But if I'm right about God and the Bible is His Word and every Word is true,  then you are in for a very rude awakening, my friend.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> because unlike family guy, jesus isn't walking the earth.
> 
> if he was alive, but isn't anymore, HE IS DEAD. just like every other person who ever walked the earth.
> If he IS RISEN, where the eff is he, cuz he isn't walking the earth.



In heaven.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> common sense .... logic ....
> 
> oh ah ha ha ha
> 
> forgot who I was talking to for a sec lol



No... common sense and logic according to you.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> If I'm wrong and God doesn't exist and the Bible is really just a bunch of fairy tale, then you (and I ) will cease to exist. I have nothing to lose. But at least the last part of my life was much MUCH better than the first part and I will die a happy, peaceful, contented soul.



I assure you I will die a happy soul.

(I mean unless I drown or something, but you catch my drift I hope)



baydoll said:


> But if I'm right about God and the Bible is His Word and every Word is true,  then you are in for a very rude awakening, my friend.



If I'm in for a rude awakening, then it's no fault of my own.  If you want or expect intelligent people to believe in you (god that is) then you'll have to do a little better then a 2,000 year old book that has been retranslated and in many cases falsely translated.  Also, when this book contains many contridictions and false information it becomes unreliable.  Add to that, the fact that every person in the world interprates it differently _and_ says that theirs is the correct translation, and it leaves much to be desired.

I will not believe something just for the sake of having something to believe in.  Especially something with so many obvious flaws.

If I go to hell for not believing in god, then he should head on down with me for giving me no reason to believe in him in the first place.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> In heaven.



so he died


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> No... common sense and logic according to you.



exactly.  Common sense does not account for miracles etc.  Logic hardly explains the noah's ark garbage etc.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Well how about I give it a shot about what will happens to you after you die....
> 
> 
> If I'm wrong and God doesn't exist and the Bible is really just a bunch of fairy tale, then you (and I ) will cease to exist. I have nothing to lose. But at least the last part of my life was much MUCH better than the first part and I will die a happy, peaceful, contented soul.   Can you say the same?
> 
> 
> *But if I'm right about God and the Bible is His Word and every Word is true,  then you are in for a very rude awakening, my friend*.



and now we are back to where we started.....

again i must ask, if you are a christian just to hedge your bets (that sure is what it sounds like) then why do you not alos pray to allah, i menan he is just as likely to be the 'right' god as jesus. what if you are wrong and all those islamics are right. dont you want your 23 vigins?


----------



## godsbutterfly

tommyjones said:


> and did you know that the very same Jews did not believe that mary bore the son of god?
> 
> so you wouldn't believe that story from your own flesh and blood, but you are willing to accept it about an unwed mother from 2000 years ago?



The Jewish people believe Jesus was a prophet and a healer (just as they believe there were other prophets and healers) but do not believe He is the Messiah. They do not accept a Messiah being born as an infant to a poor family - even one that could trace back to King David.


----------



## suzanne

Baydoll,  despite being called "stupid", a "tard" and lacking "common sense", you really persevered.  After having read the Bible and the many prophecies, I believe it takes more faith to NOT believe than to believe in Jesus Christ.  I wish there was a way to convey the comfort that comes from knowing and having a relationship with Jesus Christ.  A way of explaining that one will never be alone or devastated, despite horrible circumstances.  I wish I could explain the joy I feel at knowing where I'll be upon my death.  Thats faith.  Unfortunately, Baydoll, peoples' hearts can be hardened, but you were great.


----------



## Xaquin44

ahahaha

yes, it takes much more faith to believe in documented and proveable fact then capt. invisible.


----------



## tommyjones

Xaquin44 said:


> ahahaha
> 
> yes, it takes much more faith to believe in documented and proveable fact then capt. invisible.



i think it actually does.
it is very easy to accept that your magic friend is always going to be there to comfort you and make sure everything is ok, and that you are never going to die if you are his friend........

it takes a strong person to turn their back on what has been forced upon them since birth and realize that its all a very nice story, but a fiction designed to make us all feel good, kind of like santa and the easter bunny.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> and now we are back to where we started.....
> 
> again i must ask, if you are a christian just to hedge your bets (that sure is what it sounds like) then why do you not alos pray to allah, i menan he is just as likely to be the 'right' god as jesus. what if you are wrong and all those islamics are right. dont you want your 23 vigins?



Have you researched Islam?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> exactly.  Common sense does not account for miracles etc.  Logic hardly explains the noah's ark garbage etc.



Why is it illogical to build a boat?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Have you researched Islam?



it doesn't matter, if you are praying to your god only as a "just in case he's the right one" then shouldn't you be praying to all of them just in case?

BTW alah and God are the same entity, just different names and points of view. it is rediculous that some christians and muslims have such discontent for each other.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Why is it illogical to build a boat?



willfully stupid or an act?

I can't decide.


----------



## baydoll

> The onus is on you, since you are the one making the claim, that not only did Jesus exit (he may have) but that he was also the Son of God.




If you SINCERELY want to know if Jesus is the Son of God and that He existed, there is an excellent book called The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.

This was written by a guy whom as an athiest set out in search of evidence and material to prove Jesus Christ to be a fraud..... 

" He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. He was a courtroom analyst and the legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune.  He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.  Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself. "





> The entire premise of your Belief structure is that you Can NOT prove with evidence that he existed, or even if he did that he was the Son of God.  Because you have to have Faith.
> 
> Having Faith, by definition, requires no empirical evidence



It is truly amazing how one has to assume that just because we believe (or, in your case disbelieve) something makes it true or not. 

We believe in many things we can’t see. 

Have you ever seen the wind? History? Have you ever seen your brain? We see the ‘effects’ of the wind but it is invisible. We have records of history but it is by ‘faith’ that we believe certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible but cable and the like can detect their presence. The same principle applies  to those who are ‘connected’ to God are aware of the invisible spiritual realm which is unseen and unknown by those like yourself who have no desire to be part of God. 

By ‘faith’ you claim there is no God….so where is this empirical evidence of yours that says this ?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> it doesn't matter, if you are praying to your god only as a "just in case he's the right one" then shouldn't you be praying to all of them just in case?
> 
> BTW alah and God are the same entity, just different names and points of view. it is rediculous that some christians and muslims have such discontent for each other.




God has a Son. Islam says God doesn't. That's a huge difference between the two.


----------



## baydoll

suzanne said:


> Baydoll,  despite being called "stupid", a "tard" and lacking "common sense", you really persevered.  After having read the Bible and the many prophecies, I believe it takes more faith to NOT believe than to believe in Jesus Christ.  I wish there was a way to convey the comfort that comes from knowing and having a relationship with Jesus Christ.  A way of explaining that one will never be alone or devastated, despite horrible circumstances.  I wish I could explain the joy I feel at knowing where I'll be upon my death.  Thats faith.  Unfortunately, Baydoll, peoples' hearts can be hardened, but you were great



Thank you dear Friend. That means a lot to me.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Have you ever seen the wind? History? Have you ever seen your brain? We see the ‘effects’ of the wind but it is invisible. We have records of history but it is by ‘faith’ that we believe certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible but cable and the like can detect their presence. The same principle applies  to those who are ‘connected’ to God are aware of the invisible spiritual realm which is unseen and unknown by those like yourself who have no desire to be part of God.
> 
> By ‘faith’ you claim there is no God….so where is this empirical evidence of yours that says this ?



Yeah, the big problem with all your examples is the copius amounts of evidence they all have to back them up.  Except for 'god' that is.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> so he died



And I said this where?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> God has a Son. Islam says God doesn't. That's a huge difference between the two.



so does judeism, but that is the same god.

all three are the same god.


and since you can't know which will be the true religion to follow, shouldn't you (a bet hedger) give the same value to each, just in case?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> Yeah, the big problem with all your examples is the copius amounts of evidence they all have to back them up.  Except for 'god' that is.




You believe there is no God...so where is all the amounts of evidence backing this up?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> And I said this where?



If he was alive, but isn't now, then he died, its a very simple riddle.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> so does judeism, but that is the same god.
> 
> all three are the same god.



But true Judeism believes in Jesus as God's Son, Tommy. 





> and since you can't know which will be the true religion to follow, shouldn't you (a bet hedger) give the same value to each, just in case



Oh but I do know, my friend.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> If he was alive, but isn't now, then he died, its a very simple riddle.



Oh He's very much alive, Tommy.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> i think it actually does.
> it is very easy to accept that your magic friend is always going to be there to comfort you and make sure everything is ok, and that you are never going to die if you are his friend........
> 
> it takes a strong person to turn their back on what has been forced upon them since birth and realize that its all a very nice story, but a fiction designed to make us all feel good, kind of like santa and the easter bunny.



Like evolution?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> You believe there is no God...so where is all the amounts of evidence backing this up?



it's everywhere.  I've been to countless churches (baptised, confirmed, taught sunday school, acolyted, etc.), several countries, and all across the states, and maybe more importantly, I'm content and happy with myself and who I am.

Know what I've never seen or felt or even heard a compelling argument for?  

I'll give you one guess ....


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Oh He's very much alive, Tommy.



if he is alive then show me. people that are living are very easy to recognize


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> But true Judeism believes in Jesus as God's Son, Tommy.



no they dont. they believe there will be a mesiah, still to come, not in the past. they believe jesus was a man who was killed, thats about it.




			
				 baydoll said:
			
		

> Oh but I do know, my friend.


care to explain how you KNOW which religion is the true one?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Like evolution?



which there is ample evidence for.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> if he is alive then show me. people that are living are very easy to recognize



Showing you Jesus would be like trying to show you gravity, Tommy.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> which there is ample evidence for.



And they are?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> it's everywhere.  I've been to countless churches (baptised, confirmed, taught sunday school, acolyted, etc.), several countries, and all across the states, and maybe more importantly, I'm content and happy with myself and who I am.
> 
> Know what I've never seen or felt or even heard a compelling argument for?
> 
> I'll give you one guess ....



what is everywhere? Be specific, please.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Showing you Jesus would be like trying to show you gravity, Tommy.



but you said jesus was alive. live things are very recognizable.

and gravity is easily demonstratable and measured.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> no they dont. they believe there will be a mesiah, still to come, not in the past. they believe jesus was a man who was killed, thats about it.



And they will. That's the beauty of it.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Showing you Jesus would be like trying to show you gravity, Tommy.



that's easy enough ....

sure you don't want to rephrase that?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> but you said jesus was alive. live things are very recognizable.
> 
> and gravity is easily demonstratable and measured.



But can you show me gravity?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> And they will. That's the beauty of it.



what? i mean please explain.


Jews DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS GODS SON

if they did they would be christians


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> And they are?



this is a good one

it's been covered in countless threads on this board alone however and is extremely easy to research by yourself.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/169/2/523.pdf


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> But can you show me gravity?



i can scientifically demonstrate it with repeatable and reproducable results, so i would say yes.


----------



## baydoll

> care to explain how you KNOW which religion is the true one



IF you sincerely want to know, research Islam, research Judasim and research Christianity. With a sincere heart not a biased hardened one. 

Then you will know.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> what is everywhere? Be specific, please.



lack of evidence for god .... did you even read your post I responded to?


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> lack of evidence for god .... did you even read your post I responded to?




And I noticed a nonanswer. What is the evidence? You have yet to list them.


----------



## baydoll

> you'll have to do a little better then a 2,000 year old book that has been retranslated and in many cases falsely translated.



Oh? How has it been 'retranslated and falsely translated'?


----------



## baydoll

> I will not believe something just for the sake of having something to believe in. Especially something with so many obvious flaws.



Do you believe in Evolution?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> And I noticed a nonanswer. What is the evidence? You have yet to list them.



I said lack of evidence (and so did you in the post I responded to).

also, if you really want evidence as to a lack of god, look around.  You'll notice (realisticly) that he isn't there.

Don't give me that 'he's always with me garbage, because it just can't be proven.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Oh? How has it been 'retranslated and falsely translated'?



ahahahhaa

by all means, google 'bible mistranslations'


----------



## baydoll

> If I go to hell for not believing in god, then he should head on down with me for giving me no reason to believe in him in the first place.



God has a word for that line of thinking, my friend:



> For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth,
> 
> since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.
> 
> From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made.
> 
> As a result, people are without excuse.
> 
> For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools


 (Romans 1:18-20)

You do well to read the rest of that passage.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Do you believe in Evolution?



yes, because there is a large amount of evidence pointing out that it clearly and without a doubt occurs.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> yes, because there is a large amount of evidence pointing out that it clearly and without a doubt occurs.



like what, for instance?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> God has a word for that line of thinking, my friend:
> 
> (Romans 1:18-20)
> 
> You do well to read the rest of that passage.



oooohhhhh I shuld believe in god because things exist

ooooohhhhh

he must have made them

oooohhhhh



yeah, prove that and/or give me one shred of evidence and you may have a case on your hands.

every religion ever created (even the ones before christianity) have given stories about the earths creation.  Most of them are more entertaining.  None of them can be proven true.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> ahahahhaa
> 
> by all means, google 'bible mistranslations'



And there are just as many, if not more so sites out there that will refute that nonsense.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> oooohhhhh I shuld believe in god because things exist
> 
> ooooohhhhh
> 
> he must have made them
> 
> oooohhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, prove that and/or give me one shred of evidence and you may have a case on your hands.
> 
> every religion ever created (even the ones before christianity) have given stories about the earths creation.  Most of them are more entertaining.  None of them can be proven true.




So what do you believe?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> like what, for instance?



seriously?

are you seriously asking me to relink something I posted last page?

are you actually reading this thread?

can you read words that are not contained in the bible or written in the christian bias?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> And there are just as many, if not more so sites out there that will refute that nonsense.



and they would be wrong.

language isn't something that can be debated.  Words are assigned a specific meaning in most cases.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> So what do you believe?



about the earths creation?

nothing really.  That's something no one really has conclusive evidence for yet.  I'll wait and see what pops up.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> And they will. That's the beauty of it.



what? i mean please explain. 


Jews DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS GODS SON

if they did they would be christians

:bump:


----------



## godsbutterfly

Xaquin44 said:


> yes, because there is a large amount of evidence pointing out that it clearly and without a doubt occurs.



Not trying to be argumentive here but I have always wondered if we are supposed to have descended from apes why do we still have apes? Reminds me of this one song I know that says "Well if all of this is true then I've got relatives in the zoo!"


----------



## tommyjones

godsbutterfly said:


> Not trying to be argumentive here but I have always wondered if we are supposed to have descended from apes why do we still have apes? Reminds me of this one song I know that says "Well if all of this is true then I've got relatives in the zoo!"



the theory isn't that we evolved from apes, but that we have a common ancestor.

you know, like a lab and a wolf, or a koala and a polar bear might


----------



## godsbutterfly

Babydoll:
Have you ever been to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History? They have a ring on display that is inscribed as belonging to Joab and they have authenticated it dates back to Biblical days! I thought that was awesome!


----------



## Xaquin44

In the Natural History Museum?


----------



## godsbutterfly

Xaquin44 said:


> In the Natural History Museum?



I believe so.  The only other one I went to was Air & Space and I don't think it was there! It was right there near the Mummy and the Rome Civilization displays.


----------



## suzanne

Nucklesack, your not being ignored.  I've been thinking of how best to answer your questions, but no matter how I answer you will still maintain your non-belief.  But I will give you this.  The Bible was written for all people for all time.  There are scenarios that are as contemporary to us now as it was then,  Such as Gen. 19:23.  

I imagine as many lst century Palestinians beliefs are commensurate to todays.  I know that disciples and Jesus' followers and evangelists suffered and were tortured for their beliefs.  Peter was crucified upside down.  Stephen was stoned to death.  Paul was flogged 5 times.   Their beliefs were unshakable.

I've said before that peoples' hearts can be hardened and no matter what is said or done their minds will not be changed.  The Bible says even in Tribulation this will happen.  But even you said it is all a matter of faith.  You are absolutely correct in that.  It takes faith.


----------



## baydoll

> Have you researched Islam?
> No  have you researched Islam? your the one espousing a Pascal's Wager
> 
> Since you only believe in hedging your bets you should be the one researching other beliefs.... Just in case



Most indeed I have as well as many other religions.....have you? 

As well as true Christianity?


----------



## baydoll

Morning all! 

I am just getting online and will answer the rest of your questions but first I am going to have breakfast and take care of some business....


----------



## baydoll

> #286 (permalink)
> Nucklesack
> Registered User
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Member Since: Sep 2006
> Location: Southern Maryland
> Posts: 3,429  I did ask some very direct questions, that were ignored, maybe you can answer them :
> Quote:
> Are Bats really birds? (Leviticus 11:13)
> 
> Rabbits chew a Cud? (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)
> 
> Is the Mustard seed the smallest seed? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Mustard seed grow into a tree? (Mathew 13:32)
> 
> Does the Earth Move ? (Hebrews 1:10)
> 
> Baydoll (and others) sidestep this, because to answer them would mean they had to admit Jesus was wrong, by claiming either :
> The Bible was written for those at the Time
> Which then leads to the question, was the bible written for you me and everyone throughout time, or was it written for a 2000 year-old audience that was confined to a geographical area the size of Vermont? Does it matter that I can not understand or believe the bible, as long as a first century Palestinian could?
> 
> And what about the problem with a reverse analysis of the situation? How many first century palestinians believed in the gospels? And how many people believe in it today?
> 
> If the bible made more sense to people in first century palestine than it makes to people today, then why didn't virtually all first century palestinians believe in it? They had all the tools to understand it. It should have made perfect sense to them.
> 
> They had no reason to doubt it, compared to the reasons we have today. So what gives?(Still nothing with this, and its been asked 3 times in this thread)
> It was an error in the translation
> Which should make you logically ask, "how can you emphatically trust the accuracy of a document when you KNOW it is replete with errors" or "what makes allows you to trust the trustworthiness of a book when even you can admit there are mistranslations in it. Should make you wonder about the infallabity of a document you KNOW is rife with errors". (we really dont expect anyone to touch this one)
> 
> /Bump
> 
> Am I on ignore?



No, Sweetie.  If you noticed, you guys swamp me with a lot of questions and I can only do so much...

I do have a life outside of this forum, Hon. And a very busy one at that. 

I will try and answer YOUR questions first after I take care of some business, how's that? Just for you, sweetie-pie!


----------



## baydoll

> Are Bats really birds? (Leviticus 11:13)




This I already answered. 




> Rabbits chew a Cud? (Deuteronomy 14:7-8)



Well, let's see...




> …”The Hebrew word which has been translated "hare" is 'arnebeth'. Strong's comments, "...probably an extinct animal because no known hare chews its cud, exact meaning is unknown..." Rather than providing a transliteration of the Hebrew, and admitting that we do not know for certain what this creature is/was, translators have rendered it "hare" or "rabbit."
> Having said this, even if we accept the translation of "hare", there is not a problem. Interestingly, Moses was not the only ancient writer to include a "hare" as being common with those that chew the cud. Aristotle did the same. “






> Is the Mustard seed the smallest seed? (Mathew 13:32)



No.



> The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds.  Jesus was speaking proverbially.  That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.
> There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel.  Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it.  There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant.  The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more.  The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush.  Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration.  Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants.  Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact.  Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.
> Also, Jesus used the mustard seed elsewhere in a proverbial sense.
> "And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you," (Matt. 17:20; see also Luke 17:5).
> So, we see that Jesus used the mustard seed in illustrations in the style of proverbs to illustrate a point and that he was not speaking in a scientifically accurate sense."






> Does the Mustard seed grow into a tree? (Mathew 13:32)



See above.



> Does the Earth Move ? (Hebrews 1:10)



Hebrews 1:10-12 states:



> In the beginning, Lord, You established the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands;  they will perish, but You remain. They will all wear out like clothing;  You will roll them up like a cloak, and they will be changed like a robe. But You are the same, and Your years will never end.



Please point out where that says the Earth doesn’t move. 

Why do you ignore all the in the Bible that clearly state it does move? 

For example:


	Ps. 99:1: “The Lord reigneth ... let the earth be moved.” 
	Job 26:7: “He ... hangeth the earth upon nothing. 
	Is. 24:19: “the earth is moved exceedingly.” 
	Is. 44:24: “I am the Lord that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” 

That's it for now...I'll be back later.


----------



## baydoll

> Which then leads to the question, was the bible written for you me and everyone throughout time, or was it written for a 2000 year-old audience that was confined to a geographical area the size of Vermont? Does it matter that I can not understand or believe the bible, as long as a first century Palestinian could?



How do you explain all the millions of people throughout history on up to now who DO understands the Bible?


----------



## baydoll

> And what about the problem with a reverse analysis of the situation? How many first century palestinians believed in the gospels?



According to history there were many. Case in point: look how many Christians were put to death by Nero. The Apostles were all Jews. The first century Church were mostly Jewish. So they all must have believed in the Gospel, I mean they all died for it. Some of them horribly so. 




> And how many people believe in it today?



I know quite a few.


----------



## baydoll

> If the bible made more sense to people in first century palestine than it makes to people today, then why didn't virtually all first century palestinians believe in it? They had all the tools to understand it. It should have made perfect sense to them.



How do you know that virtually all of the first century palestinians didn't believe in it? There were quite a few who did.

The first time the Apostle Peter preached there were 5,000 palestinians that not only BELIEVED in it but became the first Christians and the church came into being.  They were all Jews. 

As for those who didn't believe in it it is for the very same reason many (yourself included) in today’s world don’t believe in it. You don’t want to believe in it. Your minds are made up. They hated Him and His message and His followers, just like you hate Him and His message and His followers. They rejected Him. You reject Him. They persecuted Him. You persecute Him. After they killed Him they then went after His followers and persecuted them… just like you do.  

Human nature never changes. People are the same then as they are now.  There will always be people who will never 'believe' because their minds are already made up and therefore CLOSED to anything and everything that calls itself by the name of Jesus Christ.

Just as there will always be a 'remnant' that DOES believes and understands and loves Him completely.


----------



## baydoll

> Which should make you logically ask, "how can you emphatically trust the accuracy of a document when you KNOW it is replete with errors" or "what makes allows you to trust the trustworthiness of a book when even you can admit there are mistranslations in it. Should make you wonder about the infallabity of a document you KNOW is rife with errors". (we really dont expect anyone to touch this one)



Please point all these 'errors' out. Let's examine them.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> i can scientifically demonstrate it with repeatable and reproducable results, so i would say yes.



Are you showing me the 'effects' of gravity or actual gravity?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> And they are?
> this is a good one
> 
> it's been covered in countless threads on this board alone however and is extremely easy to research by yourself.
> 
> http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/169/2/523.pdf



Which addressed none of the following: 

Where the first DNA came from,

the vast amounts of information in animal/human DNA,

how molecular machines evolved, 

how the first cell lived in its hostile environment long enough to reproduce,

what the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduced,  

how single-celled plants become multi-celled,

where the abundance of transitional species are, 

where the human fossil record are, 

why some animals, according to the fossil record,  did not evolve further,

why monkeys are still around,

why creatures produced by chance do not have random thoughts, 

why creatures produced by chance have moral values, 

why creatures produced by chance have feelings and emotions and how did they evolve, 

why there is order in all organisms compared to chaos in the world around it, 

where the space for the universe came from, 

where matter came from, 

where the laws of the universe came from (gravity, inertia, etc.),

how matter got so perfectly organized, 

where did energy come from to do all the organizing…. 

when, where, why, and how life came from dead matter, 

when, where, why, and how life learn to reproduce itself, 

what the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce, 


When, where, why, and how did: 

Single-celled plants became multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) 

Single-celled animals evolved? 

 Fish changed to amphibians? 

 Amphibians changed to reptiles? 

 Reptiles changed to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different.) 

and how the intermediate forms lived? 

when, where, why, how, and from what did: 

 Whales evolved? 

Sea horses evolved? 

 Bats evolved? 

Eyes evolved?

 Ears evolved?

 Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolved? 

which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others): 


The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? 

The drive to reproduced or the ability to reproduced? 

The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? 

 DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? 

the termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? 

the plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? 

the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? 

the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? 

the immune system or the need for it? 


Mimicry... Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? 

when, where, why, and how man evolved feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc?

how photosynthesis evolved? 

how thoughts evolved? 

How flowering plants evolved, and from what? 

named one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proven true?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> How do you explain all the millions of people throughout history on up to now who DO understands the Bible?



well, seeing how everyone understands it differently, I'd explain that it's silly to base your life off of something no one truly understands.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Are you showing me the 'effects' of gravity or actual gravity?



um

they are the same.  Gravity is the name given to the effect.


----------



## baydoll

> Also, if really want evidence as to a lack of a god, look around. You’ll notice (realisticly) that he isn’t here.



On the contrary, my friend….I ‘look around’ and ‘notice’ evidence of Him EVERYWHERE…. His ‘fingerprints’  all OVER this vast universe. Take a good HONEST look at my last post and tell me there is no evidence of a  Creator. 



> …  For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.  From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
> 
> Romans 1:18-32


----------



## Xaquin44

you know .... you may be right.

I'm not sure that someone as mentally challanged as you could have 'evolved' from anything.

of course this brings to light the fact that god has created a dumb####.

-way to go god-


----------



## This_person

Xaquin44 said:


> um
> 
> they are the same.  Gravity is the name given to the effect.


No, gravity is a force, what you see is the effect of the force.


----------



## baydoll

> And they will. That’s the beauty of it.
> 
> what? i mean please explain.








Gladly.


Individual Jews must come to Christ for salvation just like everybody else. As far as the nation of Israel is concern, God isn’t finished with them….they’ve been ‘set aside’ for now until the ‘fullness of the Gentiles’ comes in.  Please read Romans 11.   Jeremiah 33:8, Ezekiel 11:17, Romans 11:26 all predicted that in the end times Israel would be regenerated, restored, and regathered in their homeland which has already happened. 

Zechariah 12:10 states that in the end times, Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their Messiah. 




> Jews DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS GODS SON
> 
> If they did they would be Christians.



The Old Testament Fathers believed and had faith in Jesus as well as the Apostles and they were all Jews. The church in its infancy was mostly if not all Jewish.

 There are many in the world today who are Jews and truly believe that Jesus is the Son of God. They’re called Messianic Jews.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> well, seeing how everyone understands it differently, I'd explain that it's silly to base your life off of something no one truly understands.




Oh? Can you provide examples of this? I can provide plenty of examples of people who understands the Bible the same way I do.


----------



## baydoll

godsbutterfly said:


> Babydoll:
> Have you ever been to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History? They have a ring on display that is inscribed as belonging to Joab and they have authenticated it dates back to Biblical days! I thought that was awesome!




It's been many, many years ago since I've been....and I had no idea of that!

 That's cool!

 I may have to make a trip back one of these days to check it out! Thanks for that info.


----------



## baydoll

godsbutterfly said:


> Not trying to be argumentive here but I have always wondered if we are supposed to have descended from apes why do we still have apes? Reminds me of this one song I know that says "Well if all of this is true then I've got relatives in the zoo!"



Excellent question! 

Perhaps Xaquin, or Nucklesack can answer if for us?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> the theory isn't that we evolved from apes, but that we have a common ancestor.
> 
> you know, like a lab and a wolf, or a koala and a polar bear might



And where did you get this 'theory' of yours?


----------



## baydoll

> You fall under the same trap as This_Person, instead of doing your own investigation of a person (or report) you instead rely upon what others have told you.
> 
> I hardly think that Strobel, who was a teaching pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, from 1987 to 2000, and of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California from 2000 to 2002 could be construed as a neutral party in the research about Christ.



Lee Strobel's Bio:  



> Lee was educated at the University of Missouri (Bachelor of Journalism degree, 1974) and Yale Law School (Master of Studies in Law degree, 1979). He was a professional journalist for 14 years at The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois’ top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International.
> 
> After a nearly two-year investigation of the evidence for Jesus, Lee received Christ as his forgiver and leader in 1981. He joined the staff of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, IL, in 1987, and later became a teaching pastor there. He joined Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, CA, as a teaching pastor in 2000. He left Saddleback’s staff in mid-2002 to focus on writing. He is also a contributing editor and columnist for Outreach magazine.



Strobel wasn't a Christian when he was writing that book. 



> Paul Doland commented that Strobel portrays himself as a skeptic who would ensure a balanced perspective on the issue, but no scientists who oppose the concept of a Factual Jesus were interviewed in the book and that the book claims to investigate scientific evidence for a creator, but most of the interviewees have their doctorates in philosophy or theology, rather than science



Then let's see you refute all of Mr. Strobels arguments, Nucklesack...I'll even post them from his book on this thread myself and you can go through them one by one.



> Its kinda like claiming the Christian Cadre was "Non-Christian References to Jesus



Then you should have no problems whatsoever refuting all of what Mr. Strobel came up with in his book. 

What say you? Game?


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> Excellent question!
> 
> Perhaps Xaquin, or Nucklesack can answer if for us?



it was already answered .... but I suppose reading the thread is too taxing ....


----------



## baydoll

No it wasn't, Xaquin.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> No it wasn't, Xaquin.



you even quoted the answer ....


----------



## baydoll

This is the last post for the day and then I am off for the weekend. 




> Unlike the Bible and events in the Bible, Wind can be measured, the result of Radio/TV waves can be seen, I can see my brain.



You can ‘see’ tv/radio waves? Well that’s amazing considering how the rest of us of can’t. And just exactly how and in what way can you ‘see’ your brain? Can you literally take it out and look at it? Do you slice it open and hand it out so everyone can admire it? 






> Unlike the God and Jesus myth, the evidence of history is not hearsay, in that it is not just from secondary sources. There are documents written and signed by figures throughout history, there are first-hand accounts of Historical Figures speeches and statements recorded at the time they were actually said, rather than after the fact.



So please prove that God and Jesus is a myth and the Bible is not true. Have you actually read anything, Christian or otherwise, that tried to explain otherwise? I mean, honestly? Let's face it, all you do is attack any and all evidence Christians do provide. The only thing you will research is anti-Christian material.  This is neither fair nor rational. A SINCERE seeker of truth would look for just that—TRUTH. We all have our biases and they tend to blind us to the other possiblities out there…if we’re HONEST with ourselves (and others) we will study ALL positions with an open mind UNTIL they prove themselves to be not true. Have you done this? 





> In the case of God and Jesus, everything is hearsay and there is no quality evidence outside of the bible which supports his existence. That is fact.




No that is your opinion, whether you like it or not (and apparently you don’t). Have you researched ALL the evidence out there? 

Do know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches on the islands of this world? Do you know that Library of Congress has nearly 128 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves with a collection that include more than 29 million books and other printed materials, 2.7 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.8 million maps, and 57 million manuscripts? Have you read them all? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don’t know. THAT's a fact. 




> It's not an "opinion". It's a fact. Again, it goes back to the selective consciousness common among a large number of Christians believing what's convient, and ignoring fact and hard evidence when it's not.



So let’s see this ‘hard evidence’. 

Please provide for us all this independent evidence and facts that proves Jesus DID NOT exist as a historical figure.


Here’s a VERY BRIEF (as in I have no time right now to actually to list them all)  list of reasons why it is easier to believe Jesus did exist:
1. The entire bible tells us Jesus existed, but the proof that the bible is God's word is far to countless to list here in this answer.
2. Josephus a non-Christian historian contemporary to Jesus writes about Jesus and the events of Jesus.
3. Tacitus another ancient Roman historian writes about Jesus.
4. Thallus and Julius Africanus ancient historians write of Jesus.
5. Nero and other Roman Ceasar's persecuted and tortured Christians for not denouncing their faith in Jesus Christ.
6. The Romans tortured and killed thousand of Christians in the Coliseum for their faith in Jesus, another well documented historical fact.
7. Many of the 12 disciples were brutally killed along with their families for not denouncing that Jesus Christ rose from the Dead.

 ( Thanks to a Christian brother from another board for the above. ) 

Okay that's it for me today I'm off for the weekend! 

See you all on Monday.


----------



## Xaquin44

baydoll said:


> And just exactly how and in what way can you ‘see’ your brain? Can you literally take it out and look at it? Do you slice it open and hand it out so everyone can admire it?



AHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAA

ahahahahhaa


whew


*AHAHAHHAHAHAHHA*

hahahhaha

oh dear me.

ok, I'm officially ignoring baydoll from now on.  No one could possibly be this stupid.

I'm pretty sure everyone here (well, except apparently baydoll) has heard of brain surgery .... Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) ....

I know it must be scary because it's 'science', but I assure you that you can see your brain.


hahahahaha


----------



## foodcritic

*he's drunk*



Xaquin44 said:


> AHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAA
> 
> ahahahahhaa
> 
> 
> whew
> 
> 
> *AHAHAHHAHAHAHHA*
> 
> hahahhaha
> 
> oh dear me.
> 
> ok, I'm officially ignoring baydoll from now on.  No one could possibly be this stupid.
> 
> I'm pretty sure everyone here (well, except apparently baydoll) has heard of brain surgery .... Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) ....
> 
> I know it must be scary because it's 'science', but I assure you that you can see your brain.
> 
> 
> hahahahaha



Never argue with a drunk.  Xanadu appears to be just that


----------



## Xaquin44

foodcritic said:


> Never argue with a drunk.  Xanadu appears to be just that



you .... agree with baydoll that you can not see your brain?

who is Xanadu?


----------



## tirdun

baydoll said:


> Which addressed none of the following:


 Since you're asking simplistic questions, I'll give semi-simplistic answers. I've had to cut a few to keep it under length.


> Where the first DNA came from


Earlier genetic material, such as RNA and replicating protein strains


> the vast amounts of information in animal/human DNA,


From the earlier, lesser amounts of information in other DNA. Compare to creatures with the smallest amount of DNA


> how molecular machines evolved,


From other molecular machines, some of which are naturally occuring even today.


> how the first cell lived in its hostile environment long enough to reproduce


It wasn't a hostile environment.


> what the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduced


You're ignoring the varieties of asexual reproduction. It isn't limited to self-reproduction, there are clear steps between true cloning and genetic transfer through sex.


> how single-celled plants become multi-celled


Bifurcation, for one. 


> where the abundance of transitional species are,


Museums. Biology textbooks. Still in the ground. Lost to time.


> where the human fossil record are


See above


> why some animals, according to the fossil record,  did not evolve further


There was no evolutionary drive to do so. Sharks are a very successful species. Without a push to evolve (environmental change, lack of food, competition for mates, competition for food) there is no reason for one biological variation to be more successful than another.


> why monkeys are still around


Because they didn't all die? Why wouldn't monkey's be around? Evolution isn't a switch that gets thrown in every member of a species making them something else.


> why creatures produced by chance do not have random thoughts


I'll answer if you explain what this has to do with evolution using a true, scientific definition for evolution


> why creatures produced by chance have moral values


See above, but I will point out that altruism and charity have benefits to a group, meaning that if all members of a species have some capacity for altruism it increases the chance of survival. 


> why creatures produced by chance have feelings and emotions and how did they evolve


I don't know "why", and you're still not describing how evolution works. On this one I'll point out that numerous other mammals have emotions and feelings, including clear examples of empathy, charity, justice and mourning. 


> why there is order in all organisms compared to chaos in the world around it


Really? I don't see this chaos and order. Perhaps if you gave some clear examples.


> where the space for the universe came from


Space exists only in the universe because the universe itself exists. See? It's like asking where the hole in the donut came from if there were no donut. Perhaps if you studied some astrophysics. 


> where matter came from


Which has to do with what? 


> where the laws of the universe came from (gravity, inertia, etc.)


The laws are measurements of phenomena as we understand them. The first law of physics, for example, came from Newton's measurements of the world around him. Later Einstein over-wrote those laws with new laws. If you're asking where the gravity comes from, the answer is that we don't know, and we don't understand it entirely in the first place.


> how matter got so perfectly organized


Matter isn't perfectly organized. It's messily crunched together.


> where did energy come from to do all the organizing


Actually, the "organization" of matter, as you call it, reduces the overall potential of the energy in the universe. Every bit of so-called organization is slowly killing the universe by sucking away energy toward an ultimate death in darkness. As to where the original energy came from, all signs point the fact that it came from an enormous explosion at a central point in the universe some 14 billion years ago. It's tough to get more specific than that, because your great laws don't seem to apply very well beyond a certain point, and it all happened so long ago, you see. BUT I'm over-answering your simplistic (and probably copy-pasted) question.


> when, where, why, and how life came from dead matter


"dead" means that it was once alive. You're asking for a definition of abiogenesis and you can't even properly do so.


> when, where, why, and how life learn to reproduce itself


Ditto, see above, ibid, etc. Life, by definition, reproduces itself. See? Your question is illogical.


> what the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce


Didn't you already cut-paste.... er ASK this question? You want an example, fine. Take a creature that reproduces by spraying genetic material to itself in a water environment. Think flower: pistol, stem, that sort of thing. It's a small step from squirting to itself to squirting to a neighbor and the genetic changes that become available through the small loss of energy entailed by  moving this step external to the organism are immense. Asexual (impregnating itself) to sexual (impregnating a neighbor) is a simple step that is not a lost cause if there is no neighbor to reproduce with. This is one example.


> Single-celled plants became multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)


There probably were no 3 celled creatures because simple duplication without disconnection produces a 2 celled creature. If those two then duplicate, you get a 4,8,16 celled creature that is safer simply by being harder to destroy. Add specialization and you get all sorts of wonderful steps. 


> Single-celled animals evolved?


You're asking me to go through everything we do and don't know about abiogenisis and you'll claim a WIN if I can't undermine your existing conclusions somehow. 


> Fish changed to amphibians?


Not that amazing, there are fish today with lungs, creatures that have simple box lungs that work equally well in and out of water. 


> Amphibians changed to reptiles?


Can you even define the difference between an amphibian and reptile?


> Reptiles changed to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different.)


Yes, they're all very different ... in modern birds. In ancient birds and reptiles, they're very similar. 


> and how the intermediate forms lived?


Every species is an intermediate from the prior to the next species, assuming there is a next species and they don't go extinct.


> Whales evolved?


Whales evolved from Basilosaurus, which evolved from Rhodocetus. We have very, very nice fossils from this transition and whales are actually a very nice example of where the transitional fossils were predicted before they were found. The finding verified the prediction and expanded our knowledge. It used to be, probably back when these questions were FIRST asked (whenever that was) that whales were not so well understood in evolutionary terms. DNA mapping has helped quite a bit, and now we know that hippos are probably the closest living animal to whales. Hippos, you know, the semi-aquatic land mammals.


----------



## tirdun

*Part II*



> Sea horses evolved? Bats evolved?


Mice evolved? Clams evolved? Trillobites evolved? Are you just going to keep demanding complex answers through simplistic questions you could research yourself?


> Eyes evolved?


Ah, the eye. There are hundreds of varieties in nature, from simple eye spots that barely register light to ultra-complex examples. Oh, not human eyes, they're very simple and the lineage of steps is pretty well documented in modern animals. You can find simpler and simpler examples of the orb+single lens throughout nature. Eyes found in insects, however, are vastly more complicated.


> Ears evolved?


That one's more interesting. Ears are modified jaw joints. The fossil record is very complete on ears.


> Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolved?


Toes, colons, bronchial fibers, cancer cells, dislocated elbows?

Hair is a tube modification to a cell about to be discarded. It's well understood. Feathers are modified hair structures using more tubes. Not as well understood but not a complete mystery. Etc. Etc.


> which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others):
> The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?


First would have been the ability to consume nutrients, since you can consume inorganics and process them as needed. Digestion and appetite would have been WAY later, since having undigested food is just a waste of energy, not a critical function. Finding food would have been after food, since there are all sorts of creatures that find food without looking for it (current and filter feeders, for example). 


> The drive to reproduced or the ability to reproduced?


Drive after ability. Early reproduction was very simple and would have been done without any conscious effort, since there was no brain to make the effort. All sorts of small creatures reproduce without "drive" today.


> The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?


See modern creatures. You're using humans when there are plenty of creatures with lungs without such structures to protect them.


> the plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?


Blah blah. The plants. Co-evolution to better procreate would have followed the plants dropping seeds on the wind, like many simple plants still do.


> the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? the immune system or the need for it?


Again, there are modern examples that clearly show the evolution of these things. The original author (I'm not keeping up the illusion that you typed any of this) had to have known that creatures exist with one, but not both/all of these things. It can clearly work, why is it a question?


> Mimicry... Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


Evolution. A creature that looks even slightly like a creature that's dangerous might be skipped as a meal. The more they look dangerous, the more likely they are not to be eaten. 


> when, where, why, and how man evolved feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc?


Tell me why they couldn't evolve? Why do other creatures have them if they're so special?


> how photosynthesis evolved?


Not that exciting, look at fungus and other creatures with simple light to energy systems and be amazed that they still live.


> How flowering plants evolved, and from what?


From non-flowering plants. Yay!


> named one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proven true?


As mentioned, It was predicted that we would find certain fossils, since they had to exist and we found them. It's been predicted that certain creatures would evolve beyond their current species, meaning that they would no longer be able to reproduce with the parent species, and it happened. Science predicted that artificial materials would cause the creation of creatures capable of consuming those materials, and it happened. A lab recently predicted that they could create a bacteria that could eat the very chemical that was used to kill it if given enough generations. It did, by creating an entirely new species.


----------



## Xaquin44

the sad thing is, that she won't understand any of that, nor will she care =(

excellent correct answers.


----------



## This_person

I realize these weren't answers to me, though I've asked many similar questions.  You have completely failed at proving a thing.





tirdun said:


> It wasn't a hostile environment.


You know what the environment was?  That puts you above 100% of the rest of the population, who can only speculate without proof.





> Museums. Biology textbooks. *Still in the ground. Lost to time.*


You have faith in that, or direct proof?   Or, more guesses?





> There was no evolutionary drive to do so. Sharks are a very successful species. Without a push to evolve (environmental change, lack of food, competition for mates, competition for food) there is no reason for one biological variation to be more successful than another.


So, what is the source of that "drive"?  Humans seemingly fared just fine when we were shorter and lived shorter lives, so what caused the changes?  Sponges exist just fine - they're a successful species - so why did anything evolve past sponges?

You're making a circular, illogical argument that doesn't answer the question.





> Space exists only in the universe because the universe itself exists.


But, where did the universe come from?  Where did the matter come from for the universe?  Or, are you suggesting that it always existed - violating the laws of thermodynamics?





> Perhaps if you studied some astrophysics.


Ditto!





> Which has to do with what?


A mind so inquisitive would have us, uh, NOWHERE!  The building blocks of the universe came from _somewhere_, isn't that a good place to start for how things happened - where the stuff comes from?





> Actually, the "organization" of matter, as you call it, reduces the overall potential of the energy in the universe. Every bit of so-called organization is slowly killing the universe by sucking away energy toward an ultimate death in darkness.


Are you suggesting, by saying "sucking away energy" that energy can be created?  Or destroyed?  Because, last I heard, it could be neither created nor destroyed, just changed in form.  Or, are you referring to entropy?





> As to where the original energy came from, all signs point the fact that it came from an enormous explosion at a central point in the universe some 14 billion years ago. It's tough to get more specific than that, because your great laws don't seem to apply very well beyond a certain point, and it all happened so long ago, you see.


Okay, great - the Big Bang.  And, what about before that?

One of the great questions regarding God is - where did He come from?  That question stops many non-thinki...er, athiests from ever contemplating believing in a God.  So, where did the universe come from, some 14 billion years ago?  What was here before that, same as with the question of "who created God"?

All science does is redirect the unanswerable questions.  And, meanwhile, the Big Bang and Genesis are pretty much 100% compatible when one realizes that a "day" is yet to be defined in Genesis.  Both of these faith-based concepts work well together.





> You're asking for a definition of abiogenesis and you can't even properly do so.


And, clearly, attacking the asker's way of asking the question answers it?  Uh, no.

How DID life come from lifelessness?  Why don't we see it happen any more?  Why didn't it happen anywhere else that we can see?  Is that a better way of asking?





> You're asking me to go through everything we do and don't know about abiogenisis and you'll claim a WIN if I can't undermine your existing conclusions somehow.


Actually, no, she's asking about evolution.  Abiogenesis is life from lifelessness.  Once the life is there, it's evolution of that life.  If you're going to criticize, understand what you're attacking.

And, there is no "win".  The fact is that no one knows, no one can know.  It's faith on every side as to what happened.  "Winning" would be actual proof - which no one will ever have.  "Opening your mind" would be atheists accepting that simple truth.


----------



## baydoll

Xaquin44 said:


> AHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAA
> 
> ahahahahhaa
> 
> 
> whew
> 
> 
> *AHAHAHHAHAHAHHA*
> 
> hahahhaha
> 
> oh dear me.
> 
> ok, I'm officially ignoring baydoll from now on.  No one could possibly be this stupid.
> 
> I'm pretty sure everyone here (well, except apparently baydoll) has heard of brain surgery .... Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) ....
> 
> I know it must be scary because it's 'science', but I assure you that you can see your brain.
> 
> 
> hahahahaha



If you haven't noticed, an MRI is an IMAGE not the real thing. I assure you that what you are 'seeing' is a picture and not the real deal, sweetie. 

Tremendous difference there.


----------



## baydoll

> the sad thing is, that she won't understand any of that, nor will she care =(




Wrong again.


----------



## baydoll

> excellent correct answers



I agree...This Person DID give excellent answers! Thank, This Person!


----------



## baydoll

Where the first DNA came from  



> Earlier genetic material, such as RNA and replicating protein strains



And where did those come from?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> If you haven't noticed, an MRI is an IMAGE not the real thing. I assure you that what you are 'seeing' is a picture and not the real deal, sweetie.
> 
> Tremendous difference there.



doctors are perfectly capable of taking the top (or other portion) of your shull out and playing with your brain. additonally the MRI is an image of your brain. We also know from disection that people and most other animals have brains. brains exist in a concrete- NO FAITH kind of way

seems like you are missing something.


----------



## baydoll

the vast amounts of information in animal/human DNA,  



> From the earlier, lesser amounts of information in other DNA. Compare to creatures with the smallest amount of DNA



Again, please tell us where the smallest amount of DNA come from?


----------



## Xaquin44

tommyjones said:


> doctors are perfectly capable of taking the top (or other portion) of your shull out and playing with your brain. additonally the MRI is an image of your brain. We also know from disection that people and most other animals have brains. brains exist in a concrete- NO FAITH kind of way
> 
> seems like you are missing something.



just put this one on ignore tommy.  She's playing stupid so there's no point in arguing.

No one could be able to both 'believe that you can't see a brain' and operate a keyboard.

The world can't be made of that much stupid.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> doctors are perfectly capable of taking the top (or other portion) of your shull out and playing with your brain. additonally the MRI is an image of your brain. We also know from disection that people and most other animals have brains. brains exist in a concrete- NO FAITH kind of way




So what are you 'using' when you go to that doctor to operate on your brain to make sure you don't have a tumor or whatever?  

And also, does that doctor literally take your brain out and show it to you?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> So what are you 'using' when you go to that doctor to operate on your brain to make sure you don't have a tumor or whatever?
> 
> And also, does that doctor literally take your brain out and show it to you?



you cannot see your own butthole, do you have one?

BTW, looking at it in the mirror is just seeing an image of it, not the real thing.......


----------



## baydoll

how molecular machines evolved,  



> From other molecular machines, some of which are naturally occuring even today.



Again, another non-answer. Where did those molecular machines come from? And how did they 'naturally' occur? 



> Michael Behe, a biochemist currently teaching at Lehigh University, coined a term for describing the design phenomenon inherent in molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellar motor -- "Irreducible Complexity" -- "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
> 
> Like a mechanical motor, each part in the flagellar motor is absolutely necessary for the whole to function. Therefore, I couldn't logically deduce any naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the existence of a bacterial flagellum. Besides, no one would expect an outboard motor, whether mechanical or biological, to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Outboard motors are designed and engineered!
> 
> Of course, I just picked one example. The bacterial flagellum is only one among many thousands of intricate, well-designed, molecular machines. Furthermore, take these same principles of design and "irreducible complexity" and apply them to marvels such as the human eye, ear, heart, lungs and brain. Seriously, how can we logically explain the gradual and random development of these complex systems?
> 
> What about the human heart? It's a miraculously efficient and durable hydraulic pump that no engineer could dream of producing…
> 
> What about the human brain? It's a legitimate computer system, 1,000 times faster than a Cray supercomputer and with more connections than all the computers, phone systems and electronic appliances on the entire planet...2


In Darwin's own words: 



> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 3


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> how molecular machines evolved,
> 
> 
> 
> Again, another non-answer. Where did those molecular machines come from? And how did they 'naturally' occur?
> 
> 
> In Darwin's own words:





			
				darwin said:
			
		

> If it could be *demonstrated *that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 3



demonstrated is different that theorized


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by darwin
> If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. 3
> 
> demonstrated is different that theorized



Then why is evolution still being taught as science and therefore fact?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Then why is evolution still being taught as science and therefore fact?



it is taught as a theory, some parts of which have been demonstarated as fact.



so what, you aren't going to answer the bunghole question? i mean how do you know you have one if you have never seen it?

are you still trying to argue that people dont have brains?


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Because it is a *SCIENTIFIC *theory.  It is perfectly acceptable to teach a *SCIENTIFIC *theory in a *SCIENCE *class.  Creationism/Intelligent design is acceptable to teach in a Theology class.  Don't worry your not alone, This_Person has problems understanding this concept also
> 
> What your asking for is equal status between a *SCIENTIFIC *theory based on fact and discovery, versus a *THEOLOGICAL *belief based on the absense of fact and discovery (definition of faith).   Which is an acceptable subject in a Debate class



According to the Oxford Dictionary, science is a 'branch of study...concerned either with a body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified....under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain". 

So True Science is observable, demonstrable, repeatable. 

Is Evolution Scientific? Is it observable, demonstrable, repeatable? 

Can it trace itself back to a point where inanimate matter became a living creature? 

The foundation of the Evolutionary 'Theory' is as thus:



> 1. Unknown Chemicals in the primordial past....through...
> 
> 2. Unknown Processes that no longer exist...produces...
> 
> 3. Unknown Life Forms that are not to be found..but could, through...
> 
> 4. Unknown Reproduction Methods, spawn new life...in an ..
> 
> 5.Unknown Oceanic Soup Complex...at an..
> 
> 6.Unknown Time and Place.  (Dennis R Peterson)





In other words, a fairy tale.


----------



## Xaquin44

you guys are arguing with someone who doesn't think that the human brain is visible.  Nothing you can do will make her change her (hahaha) mind.

When someone this stupid presents an argument (and I use that term loosely, as random false/stupid statements hardly qualify) this terrible, it's best to either laugh it off and hope she's kidding, or die a little inside at the idea that anyone could actually be this dumb.

Myself, I'm going to read a book.  Using my perfectly visible mind (as well as my eyes and hands).


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> You've glossed over a Scientific Theory being taught in a *Science* class.  Its perfectly acceptable, for class devoted to *Science*, to learn about a *Scientific *theory.
> You minimize, because you have to, that one is a theory based on Fact and Discovery, the other is based on the absence of Fact and Discovery.  You have your theory complete, God did it.
> I have no problem for a Theological class to teach Inteligent Design or Creationism, but which ID/Creationism theory would you like taught in a *Theological* class? (remember yours isnt hardly the only one).



Very quickly:




> Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.
> 
> The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.
> 
> Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.
> 
> Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.
> 
> The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.



The 'theories' of evolution, and I use that term loosely, have been shown to be false. Surprisingly (or maybe not) some of these proven fake 'theories' are still being taught in our schools.   

Darwin made up a lot of 'facts' and then 'filled in' when he had no proofs.


----------



## Xaquin44

Nucklesack said:


> I know, I was trying to not put her in the same category as Marie (Dinosaurs and Man co-existed) and I keep getting drawn back into the discussion.
> 
> We need BCP or Italian to create another Muslim are nuts for believing the same thing Christian are taught threads



Sometimes I wish I had to willpower to ignore whole subforums =/


----------



## foodcritic

baydoll said:


> According to the Oxford Dictionary, science is a 'branch of study...concerned either with a body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified....under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain".
> 
> So True Science is observable, demonstrable, repeatable.
> 
> Is Evolution Scientific? Is it observable, demonstrable, repeatable?
> 
> Can it trace itself back to a point where inanimate matter became a living creature?
> 
> The foundation of the Evolutionary 'Theory' is as thus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, a fairy tale.




Very good points.  I will also point out that the trifecta of forumites who loves gay rights and hate all things God keep quoting "Science".  
Which science actually are we refering to.  The loudest anti-god scientists seem to come from the field of zoology or biology.  What about the numerous other "sciences"?  The FACT continues that most of these sciences will conflict with each other.

This does not prove God or creation by the way but it continues to poke bigger holes in the evolution theory.  

When we press most of these guys about first cause or the big bang they can not answer it.  What was before the "big bang"?  Ask and you will get dozens of answers from "scientists".


----------



## Toxick

foodcritic said:


> Which science actually are we refering to.  The loudest anti-god scientists seem to come from the field of zoology or biology.  What about the numerous other "sciences"?






I can say with a fair amount of certainty that we in the Computer Science field have not come to a concensus on the existence or nonexistence of a diety or dieties.



We do however remain totally pissed off at the de-propagation of Jolt Cola and ephedra.


----------



## tommyjones

foodcritic said:


> Very good points.  I will also point out that the trifecta of forumites who loves gay rights and hate all things God keep quoting "Science".
> Which science actually are we refering to.  The loudest anti-god scientists seem to come from the field of zoology or biology.  What about the numerous other "sciences"?  The FACT continues that most of these sciences will conflict with each other.
> 
> This does not prove God or creation by the way but it continues to poke bigger holes in the evolution theory.
> 
> When we press most of these guys about first cause or the big bang they can not answer it.  What was before the "big bang"?  Ask and you will get dozens of answers from "scientists".




and where did god sit when he created the universe?

where did he get the stuff (as we know from science, matter is not created or destroyed)?

what was there BEFORE god created the universe?

did god create life on other planets?


answer those oh insightful one......


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Because it is a *SCIENTIFIC *theory.  It is perfectly acceptable to teach a *SCIENTIFIC *theory in a *SCIENCE *class.  Creationism/Intelligent design is acceptable to teach in a Theology class.  Don't worry your not alone, This_Person has problems understanding this concept also
> 
> What your asking for is equal status between a *SCIENTIFIC *theory based on fact and discovery, versus a *THEOLOGICAL *belief based on the absense of fact and discovery (definition of faith).   Which is an acceptable subject in a Debate class


I have no problem understanding the concept - I reject evolution as different in basis than Intelligent Design.

ID can't be tested?  Show me the test for evolution that includes demonstratable, repeatable results of sponges becoming humans (granted, with eons in between).  Show me the test with demonstratable, peer reviewable, repeatable results for abiogenesis given the known conditions of when it occurred.

You can't do those things.  I can't give you the test for ID.  We are equal in our faith that our untestable, undemonstratable beliefs are right.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> I can say with a fair amount of certainty that we in the Computer Science field have not come to a concensus on the existence or nonexistence of a diety or dieties.
> 
> 
> 
> We do however remain totally pissed off at the de-propagation of Jolt Cola and ephedra.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> and where did god sit when he created the universe?


What was in the space occupied before the universe expanded?  Why did it expand exactly when it did, not a microsecond or three millenium before?





> where did he get the stuff (as we know from science, matter is not created or destroyed)?


And, where did the stuff come from for the universe?  What were the laws in that first pico-second, and why did they change?





> what was there BEFORE god created the universe?


Or, before it sprang out of nothingness without God?





> did god create life on other planets?


Is there life on other planets?





> answer those oh insightful one......


Ditto.

We don't know, either of us, any more than the other.  Good to see you're getting the point.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> What was in the space occupied before the universe expanded?  Why did it expand exactly when it did, not a microsecond or three millenium before?And, where did the stuff come from for the universe?  What were the laws in that first pico-second, and why did they change?Or, before it sprang out of nothingness without God?Is there life on other planets?Ditto.
> 
> We don't know, either of us, any more than the other.  Good to see you're getting the point.



if the point is that you are an idiot, i got that a long time ago.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> if the point is that you are an idiot, i got that a long time ago.


I'm trying to have a civil, reasonable discussion on this, Tommy.  Do you realize there are no answers or testable, repeatable, peer reviewable, demonstratable theories from science, either, to any of these questions?  Have you gotten the point that you don't know, and have no better way of proving any of science's theories than ID can?


----------



## tirdun

This_person said:


> You have completely failed at proving a thing.


I didn't attempt to prove anything. I answered flippant, ignorant questions with answers that are supported by modern science. As my prior discussions with you have proven, you will fall back on the same set of arguments to debate nothing and understand less.


> You know what the environment was?  That puts you above 100% of the rest of the population, who can only speculate without proof.


The environment is not fully understood, mostly because it doesn't exist anymore. The question, however, supposes that the environment was pure acid and nothing could have come from it. I don't have time to research, format and post answers to a hundred questions that were cut and paste from some creationist site. Argumentum ad ignorantium infinity is a losing battle.


> You have faith in that, or direct proof?   Or, more guesses?


That there are bones in the ground? I'm going to say that I have direct proof and claim that a fossil will be found today. Large, important fossils may not be, but they -will- be eventually.


> So, what is the source of that "drive"?  Humans seemingly fared just fine when we were shorter and lived shorter lives, so what caused the changes?  Sponges exist just fine - they're a successful species - so why did anything evolve past sponges?


The "drive" is evolution. The biological mechanisms of evolution have little effect in successful species except over very large numbers of generations. 

Sponges are successful in specific environments and less successful in others. Environments that change, which creates pressures, which drives the mechanics of evolution. 


> You're making a circular, illogical argument that doesn't answer the question.


You have nothing to support that and you make endless claims that things are true, not true, and equivocal with nothing but your own personal beliefs.


> But, where did the universe come from?  Where did the matter come from for the universe?


Don't know, and neither do you. The matter came from the energy which came from the beginnings of the universe which are unknown. This in no way supports your argument that it snapped into existence and that some hand has been tweaking the knobs ever since.


> violating the laws of thermodynamics?


I would wager you don't even understand the laws of thermodynamics, nor the theory of thermodynamics under which they exist. 


> A mind so inquisitive would have us, uh, NOWHERE!


A mind as closed as yours would have us ignore the universe.


> The building blocks of the universe came from _somewhere_, isn't that a good place to start for how things happened - where the stuff comes from?


Sadly, that place to start doesn't really exist and the tools by which we now study it are limited. Background noise in the universe, for example, which is how we know most of what we know of the beginnings of time


> Are you suggesting, by saying "sucking away energy" that energy can be created?  Or destroyed?  Because, last I heard, it could be neither created nor destroyed, just changed in form.


Sucking away, layman's term for reducing the usefulness of the energy through entropy, which you might understand if you understood the theory of thermodynamics.


> Or, are you referring to entropy?


See? You know the words, but you don't understand their meaning. Creating order costs energy. Energy that is reduced, depleted through entropy but not destroyed.


> Okay, great - the Big Bang.  And, what about before that?


There is no way to objectively know "before that" because asking "before that" doesn't really make sense as we understand the universe. 


> One of the great questions regarding God is - where did He come from?  That question stops many non-thinki...er, athiests from ever contemplating believing in a God.  So, where did the universe come from, some 14 billion years ago?  What was here before that, same as with the question of "who created God"?


That question stumps many theists too, but I dare say that I have more evidence in the early existence of a universe than you have in the appearance of God. 


> All science does is redirect the unanswerable questions.


Really? Asking why lightning strikes is unanswerable? Because science eventually did that. Why do people get sick? Plenty of answers, plenty more to find. Why do we have earthquakes and volcanoes? Answered, more questions found, deeper understanding reached.

Why do people die in hurricanes?


> And, meanwhile, the Big Bang and Genesis are pretty much 100% compatible when one realizes that a "day" is yet to be defined in Genesis.


Genesis: Day="yom" = 24 hours. It means 24 hours everywhere else in the Bible, why not here? Sections of day are regularly given, when is the "evening" of a million years? Shifting "day" to mean some vast length of time also puts the Sun being created millions of years (thousands of years? billions of years? weeks?) after plants. 


> Both of these faith-based concepts work well together.


No, and faith is belief without evidence. While you seem stuck in the idea that science is all based on people thinking things are wonderful concepts and therefore must be true, there's actually a lot of evidence required.


> And, clearly, attacking the asker's way of asking the question answers it?


The question betrays an ignorance of the item being challenged, which makes it foolish to bother answering. 


> How DID life come from lifelessness?  Why don't we see it happen any more?  Why didn't it happen anywhere else that we can see?  Is that a better way of asking?


Yes, it is. And the details of which are available to you in a format that isn't compatible with me typing onto an internet forum. Decades of science and tons of research and all that. Is the question answered? No. Does that make it "faith" or "guesswork"? No.


> Actually, no, she's asking about evolution.  Abiogenesis is life from lifelessness.  Once the life is there, it's evolution of that life.  If you're going to criticize, understand what you're attacking.


Actually, Yes. She's asking how single celled organisms, which were very likely the earliest forms of life, evolved. And she's doing it by cutting and pasting, and she's doing it with no understanding of the science. And you're defending it with no understanding of the science and demanding that I cover years of college level material and challenging concepts on a forum when she and you are both hostile to the concept.


> And, there is no "win".  The fact is that no one knows, no one can know.  It's faith on every side as to what happened.  "Winning" would be actual proof - which no one will ever have.  "Opening your mind" would be atheists accepting that simple truth.


Different day, same argument. Science = faith for you and that's the end, therefore any conclusions met by science that don't line up with conclusions reached by faith are dismissable.

This entire exercise was, as stated in the first line, a fast refutation of a set of cut and paste questions that argue purely by overwhelming. Ask a hundred short questions that require tedious and complicated answers and you can win the debate by wearing down anyone attempting to rebut.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> I'm trying to have a civil, reasonable discussion on this, Tommy.  Do you realize there are no answers or testable, repeatable, peer reviewable, demonstratable theories from science, either, to any of these questions?  Have you gotten the point that you don't know, and have no better way of proving any of science's theories than ID can?



see the part you dont get is that evloution does not talk to the biginings of the universe. It is only a theory about how life may have developed and changed over time. To this theory there is numerous evidence. you, foodbigot and the woman who doesn't believe she has a brain becasue she has never seen it are having trouble with staying on point.

thats why i put the same stupid questions back to foodbigot, they have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.


----------



## tirdun

baydoll said:


> Where the first DNA came from
> And where did those come from?



And if I answer that? Will you ask where THAT came from? And then again? And so forth until I give up? 

Why don't you go find out? Why don't you go find that out, again? Why don't you go find THAT out? Heck, make a career of it and you can stop asking people on internet forums to do research papers for you.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> see the part you dont get is that evloution does not talk to the biginings of the universe. It is only a theory about how life may have developed and changed over time. To this theory there is numerous evidence. you, foodbigot and the woman who doesn't believe she has a brain becasue she has never seen it are having trouble with staying on point.
> 
> thats why i put the same stupid questions back to foodbigot, they have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.


So, let's stick with evolution.

What is the mechanism?  Is there a "strategic design", or is it just happenstance?

Because, if there's a strategic design in how species change, then there must be something that set up the design (i.e., a designer).

If there is just happenstance, than the answer that sharks haven't evolved because they didn't need to wouldn't stand up to logical argument regarding change happening just because of random mutations and variations that come naturally?

So, which is it, wrong, or wronger?


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> So, let's stick with evolution.
> 
> What is the mechanism?  Is there a "strategic design", or is it just happenstance?
> 
> Because, if there's a strategic design in how species change, then there must be something that set up the design (i.e., a designer).
> 
> If there is just happenstance, than the answer that sharks haven't evolved because they didn't need to wouldn't stand up to logical argument regarding change happening just because of random mutations and variations that come naturally?
> 
> So, which is it, wrong, or wronger?



you really dont understand the question do you?

its survival of the fittest. changes happen by 'happenstance' and wether or not this change developes within a species has to do with if that change is beneficial.

so the answer is yes, somehow you have found a way to be wrong, and wronger in the same post


----------



## This_person

tirdun said:


> I didn't attempt to prove anything. I answered flippant, ignorant questions with answers that are supported by modern science.


Except, they're not.  They're guesses, suppositions, etc., not answers.





> The environment is not fully understood, mostly because it doesn't exist anymore. The question, however, supposes that the environment was pure acid and nothing could have come from it.


For me, the answer is no one knows what the environment was, so it's pointless to say whether it was hostile or not.  She says it was, you say it wasn't, and neither of you have anything but guesswork and supposition to answer.  You don't know.  That's the point.





> That there are bones in the ground?


No, not that there are bones in the ground.  No one disputes that.  That those bones are actually there and prove your point.  You don't know, you have *faith* in that *belief*, not knowledge.





> The "drive" is evolution. The biological mechanisms of evolution have little effect in successful species except over very large numbers of generations.


Again, what mechanisms?  Why are the mechanisms different for different species?  What causes the mechanisms to effect change in some, but not others.  

In other words, are you suggesting giraffes grew longer necks because trees got taller, or that some random mutation that caused longer necks caused a species that adapted to taller trees?  If their necks got longer through need, then something triggered it to happen when it did.  If they got longer through random mutations, why do we still have species that don't much mutate and change anymore (ie, over a few million years)?  It can't be both!





> Sponges are successful in specific environments and less successful in others. Environments that change, which creates pressures, which drives the mechanics of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, we still have the sponges.  Why didn't they just stay where they were, or die where the environment changed on them?  What was the mechanism that affected the change at that point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't know, and neither do you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God, you finally get it.  Nothing else need be said, because you finally see the light.  YOU DON"T KNOW, and that makes your arguments no more valid than mine!!!!  Glory be, you found the light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different day, same argument. Science = faith for you and that's the end, therefore any conclusions met by science that don't line up with conclusions reached by faith are dismissable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've yet to find any conclusions met by science that don't line up with faith.  Even the guesses and suppostions line up with faith, and are nothing but faith themselves, as there are no proofs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire exercise was, as stated in the first line, a fast refutation of a set of cut and paste questions that argue purely by overwhelming. Ask a hundred short questions that require tedious and complicated answers and you can win the debate by wearing down anyone attempting to rebut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cut and paste nothing in regards to my questions.  I don't know if any other poster was or not, and I don't care - questions are questions.
> 
> At least you realize you don't know, can't know, and that anything beyond that is faith, not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## baydoll

> Shown by who? the Theory of Evolution itself is sound, the fine print may get altered.
> are you Catholic you might want to click here.



No I'm not Catholic, LOL. No offense to the Catholics on here. (I'm married to one, btw) .




> What fake "Theories" are being Tuaght? What facts did Darwin make up




The Tree of Life is an example.  It has an amoeba at the bottom, fishes and amphibians on the bottom branches, up higher there are birds and reptiles, then apes toward the top, and man on the highest branch. It looks very 'convincing' and true but is it?

Not according to the fossil record it isn't.....the fossil record doesn't support it at all: 




> We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search through younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find gradual transition of the most primitive life forms into more complex ones…Since the transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of years (during which time millions, even billions, of transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these transitional forms should be discovered. (Joe White, Ed.D. and Nicholas Comninellis, M.D., Darwin's Demise, Master Books, 2001, p. 15).




But they have not been discovered. 

Dr. White and Dr. Comninellis continue, 



> If reptiles turned into birds, as claimed, then we should also expect to find fossils with gradually extending of the front feet of the reptile into the form of wings like a bird…The fossil record ought to reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They should fill museum collections



But they don't.  There is not one credible fossil evidence to support evolution.

Here's another one: Embryonic Recapitulation (the theory that human embryos develop by evolutionary stages of animal ancestry and have the organs of our 'supposed' evolutionary ancestors at different stages in devoloment as an embryo) : 





> *ERNST HAECKEL
> Before concluding this study on recapitulation, we should consider *Haeckel himself.
> 
> *Haeckel invented the word, "recapitulation," also calling it the "biogenetic law." He said that embryos repeat (recapitulate) the shapes of their evolutionary forebearers.
> 
> But he needed proof for his theories, first proclaimed in 1866; so, since he had drafting ability, he doctored sketches of embryos, to make them appear alike! In 1874, he published his fraudulent charts, and fooled many people in Germany into believing that evolution must be true.
> 
> Later, a leading German embryologist, *Wilhelm His, Sr., exposed the hoax for what it was. He printed sketches of what those embryos really looked like, and declared *Haeckel to be a liar and a fraud.
> 
> But the facts about the fraudulent aspect of *Haeckel's work have never been widely published in English. Instead, you will find the recapitulation theory in standard schoolbooks, along with similarities, mimicry, and vestiges.—pp. 38-39, 41.
> 
> The human heart. Some lower level creatures have a single chamber in their heart, others have two or three. So, if we—who have four chambers in our hearts—"recapitulated" lower creatures while we were embryos, we should have first one, then two, then three, and then four chambers in our hearts, as we progress through our embryonic development.
> 
> But the truth is that, when you were conceived, you first had two chambers in your heart. They later fused into a single chamber. Eventually, before birth, they developed into four chambers. So, instead of the evolutionary 1-2-3-4, humans have 2-1-4.
> 
> Basic flaw. There is a basic flaw in *Haeckel's theory. It is this:
> 
> Man is supposed to have descended from a bird. And an animal, whose ancestor was a fish, which got tired of swimming around, came out of the water and spent the rest of its life on land while giving birth to nonfish.
> 
> But, aside from the oddity of such a yarn, why do fish embryos also have—not only their own fish gills,—but also the bird yoke sac and the animal tail? Did the fish descend from the bird? It is clear that *Haeckel's theory does not even agree with itself.
> 
> This theory is not merely foolish; it is the result of an outright hoax, initially developed by *Ernst Haeckel in 1866.
> 
> In the 19th century, when relatively little was known about the human body, some evolutionists came up with a strange idea which does not agree with modern scientific facts. Then, in order to make the theory appear even more convincing, one of those men produced woodcut illustrations which were soon afterward proven to be hoaxes.
> 
> The concept of "recapitulation" is based on the fact that there are similarities among embryos of people, animals, reptiles, birds, and fish. All creatures are so tiny when they first begin life that one would expect certain similarities to initially exist between, say, a fish and a bird. All babies begin as extremely tiny round balls and all look similar for the first few weeks. When very small, there is only one ideal way for them to develop. The problem here is size and packaging. Literally thousands of structures and organs are developing within a very small space.
> 
> The evolutionary theory of "recapitulation" declares that human embryos have organs which are leftovers from evolutionary ancestors. Human embryos are said to have a yolk sac like a chicken, a tail like a lizard, and gill slits like a fish! Is this true? No, it is not. Reputable scientists laugh at the idea, but evolutionists keep saying it is so.
> 
> THE "CHICKEN SAC"
> In a baby chick, the yolk sac is its source of nourishment until it hatches. This is because the chick is in a shell, without a connection to its mother.
> 
> In a human, the only similarity of this bulging sac is its shape. Your blood is made in your bones; but, when you were an embryo, you had no bones! So God gave you a tiny sac-like organ to initially make your blood for you. That is what that sac is for. It takes blood to make the bones which will make the blood! You have reason to be thankful for that little sac.
> 
> THE "LIZARD TAIL"
> When you were an embryo, your spine was longer than your body. Therefore, it stuck out and looked like a "tail." This is because your spine is very complicated and it initially required extra space to develop. Later your body grew larger and perfectly fit the length of the spine. Would you rather that all your spine was not formed back then? God does everything just right. The complex nerves in your spine needed that extra length in order to grow properly.
> 
> THE "FISH GILLS"
> The evolutionists call these "gill slits." These are three little folds you had in your neck when you were an embryo. Why were they there? Carefully examining them, we find no gills to extract oxygen out of water, and no gill slits (no openings) of any kind. These are not gill slits! There are no slits and no gills.
> 
> Scientists now know that the upper fold eventually develops into the middle ear canals, the middle fold changes into the parathyroids, and the bottom fold becomes the thymus gland.
> 
> Once again the evolutionists are wrong. When a person bases his ideas on a false premise, all his conclusions will be incorrect. And evolutionary theory is based on the concept that everything made itself.



I have plenty more. Stay tuned!


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> you really dont understand the question do you?


Yes, I do!  


> its survival of the fittest. changes happen by 'happenstance' and wether or not this change developes within a species has to do with if that change is beneficial.


So, if changes happen purely through happenstance, then those changes would happen regardless of their benefit.  Or, we'd have nothing but purely fit species by now, and there would be no changes that continue to grow into new species - the benefits wouldn't be there because the parent species would be sufficient.

Bear that in mind when you get to the giraffe question.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Yes, I do!  So, if changes happen purely through happenstance, then those changes would happen regardless of their benefit.  Or, we'd have nothing but purely fit species by now, and there would be no changes that continue to grow into new species - the benefits wouldn't be there because the parent species would be sufficient.
> 
> Bear that in mind when you get to the giraffe question.



you really play the part of the idiot well.

a change in the individual happens by happenstance, if that individuals change is carried on to the species has to do with if the change is beneficial.


so the giraffe grew the long neck because some individuals had slightly longer necks, this helped that individual reproduce (probably by being better fed) and this individuals change was passed on to its  offspring. a few hundred or thousand generations later and they don't look like the same animal anymore.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> There are lots of ways that animals evolve that are not captured in fossils ... in metabolism used to deal with changing food sources, in proteins, in immune responses to diseases, in behavior, in the size of soft organs. The only thing left in fossils is bone structure.
> 
> Sharks and their relatives  are cartilaginous fishes. This means that instead of bone in their skeletons they have cartilage a lighter and more elastic substance that does not usually fossilize like bone.


So, you're saying that we don't know if sharks have really changed significantly over time or not.  This would be the foundation of my argument.  


> There is no such thing as a 'perfect' organism or species, and evolution never really stops.
> 
> However, if a species is well adapted to its environment, and if that environment does not change in any significant way for a long period of time, then the rate at which a species evolves can slow considerably. Random mutations still occur, but none of them provide the individuals that have them with a significant advantage over the rest of the population, and any deleterious effects would be more pronounced
> 
> That said, evolution is a response to environment ... once an organism is (a) well suited for its environment, and (b) is not experiencing significant competition for resources, survival, or mating opportunities, then evolution will appear to slow to a crawl ... but it doesn't "stop."


If I understand you correctly, you're saying the changes occur whether they're needed or not, but the ones that aren't needed don't propogate.  Is that correct?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> you really play the part of the idiot well.


Are you capable of carrying on a civil discussion?  I've seen you in many threads, and you are virtually never civil.





> a change in the individual happens by happenstance, if that individuals change is carried on to the species has to do with if the change is beneficial.
> 
> so the giraffe grew the long neck because some individuals had slightly longer necks, this helped that individual reproduce (probably by being better fed) and this individuals change was passed on to its  offspring. a few hundred or thousand generations later and they don't look like the same animal anymore.


So, a group of giraffe-parent species all had the same happenstance change of slightly longer necks, and bred (probably close to exclusively) with one another, and this caused a fundamental shift in their DNA, which made the neck-length gene just that much more pronounced, and generations later we have what we have?  Is that your point of view?  (I want to make sure I understand your argument correctly)


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Are you capable of carrying on a civil discussion?  I've seen you in many threads, and you are virtually never civil.So, a group of giraffe-parent species all had the same happenstance change of slightly longer necks, and bred (probably close to exclusively) with one another, and this caused a fundamental shift in their DNA, which made the neck-length gene just that much more pronounced, and generations later we have what we have?  Is that your point of view?  (I want to make sure I understand your argument correctly)



its just like the way they made miniature poodles.

how the eff do you think they did that?


i mean if you can see it (a permanent change) through manipulation in just a few generations, why is it hard to understand that it happened on its own over millions of years?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> its just like the way they made miniature poodles.
> 
> how the eff do you think they did that?
> 
> 
> i mean if you can see it (a permanent change) through manipulation in just a few generations, why is it hard to understand that it happened on its own over millions of years?


Two dogs combining (through a designer's manipulations, by the way) into a mutt, and carefully crafted (by a designer) to keep just the properties of the two parents in the new mutt is far, far, far different than spontaneously growing a longer neck, don't you think?


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Two dogs combining (through a designer's manipulations, by the way) into a mutt, and carefully crafted (by a designer) to keep just the properties of the two parents in the new mutt is far, far, far different than spontaneously growing a longer neck, don't you think?



not really.


one genetic change happened over a short period because a person influenced it. the other change happened over a long period because an environmental influence. just because one takes longer doesn't mean they are not related.


btw, the miniature wasn't formed by making a mutt. purebreeds were selectively breed until they had a smaller reproducable version of the purebreed. it might not have met the "standard" for the breed, but it would still be a pure bred.


----------



## baydoll

> its just like the way they made miniature poodles.
> 
> how the eff do you think they did that?
> 
> 
> i mean if you can see it (a permanent change) through manipulation in just a few generations, why is it hard to understand that it happened on its own over millions of years?



Actually, this is an example of breeding selectively. It's the same genetic process responsible for the hybridization of cattle or roses. From the chihauhau to the Great Dane they are all still DOGS. Left to themselves for several generations you'll end up with mongrels. Never once has some offspring turned up with a curious 'meow' or a pig snout or some other totally new and benefitical feature not found in the dog genetic pool.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Actually, this is an example of breeding selectively. It's the same genetic process responsible for the hybridization of cattle or roses. From the chihauhau to the Great Dane they are all still DOGS. Left to themselves for several generations you'll end up with mongrels. Never once has some offspring turned up with a curious 'meow' or a pig snout or some other totally new and benefitical feature not found in the dog genetic pool.



maybe not in your life time bwhahahahaha



yeah, in evolution its called 'natural selection'


----------



## baydoll

Getting back to the question I asked that turnin or whatshisnameis guy and his answer to me (in quotes):

where the abundance of transitional species are, 


> Museums. Biology textbooks. Still in the ground. Lost to time.



Please post these 'transitional species' that are in Museums and Biology textbooks...name them. 

Still in the ground? If evolution was true, these 'links' should be plentiful. Paleontologtists have been digging for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS all over this planet and have found nothing. 

If evolution were true, WHY don't we see all manners of living transitional kinds? Why do we still have monkeys?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> not really.
> 
> 
> one genetic change happened over a short period because a person influenced it. the other change happened over a long period because an environmental influence. just because one takes longer doesn't mean they are not related.
> 
> 
> btw, the miniature wasn't formed by making a mutt. purebreeds were selectively breed until they had a smaller reproducable version of the purebreed. it might not have met the "standard" for the breed, but it would still be a pure bred.


The difference is the "selectively" bred.

What would have been the environmental cause of the longer neck, and then the cause of the selective breeding within the parent species?

And, if we can do that, why haven't we taken a sponge and exposed it to many different environmental effects to come up with both plants and animals (land type each) from this ocean based life that is the supposed mother of us all, to prove evolution correct once and for all?


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> The difference is the "selectively" bred.
> 
> What would have been the environmental cause of the longer neck, and then the cause of the selective breeding within the parent species?
> 
> And, if we can do that, why haven't we taken a sponge and exposed it to many different environmental effects to come up with both plants and animals (land type each) from this ocean based life that is the supposed mother of us all, to prove evolution correct once and for all?



the obvious answer is that food became harder to reach through environmental constraints meaning that tall or longer necked animals more easily fed and therefore were more likely to reproduce. shorter animals couldn't reach the food and reproduced less.

Natural secetion......


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Getting back to the question I asked that turnin or whatshisnameis guy and his answer to me (in quotes):
> 
> where the abundance of transitional species are,
> 
> 
> Please post these 'transitional species' that are in Museums and Biology textbooks...name them.
> 
> Still in the ground? If evolution was true, these 'links' should be plentiful. Paleontologtists have been digging for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS all over this planet and have found nothing.
> 
> If evolution were true, WHY don't we see all manners of living transitional kinds? Why do we still have monkeys?





i will say it one more time for you.....

we have a common ancestor, we did not evolve directly today's monkeys. We both brached off in the same tree.


----------



## baydoll

> so the giraffe grew the long neck because some individuals had slightly longer necks, this helped that individual reproduce (probably by being better fed) and this individuals change was passed on to its offspring. a few hundred or thousand generations later and they don't look like the same animal anymore



One of Darwin's ideas were that during a long drought, some imaginary 'pre-giraffe' were taller than others so they were able to reach the scarce leaves upon which it fed. These 'survivors' supposedly "left offsprings inheriting the same bodily pecularities, while individuals less favored in the same respects would have been the most likely to perish" (Darwin's Origin of Species).  Darwin concluded, "by this process long continued, an ordinary hoofed guadruped might be converted into a giraffe".

Well how the heck did the baby giraffes manage to survive during this incredible long drought? 

And where are the fossil evidence supporting this?

There are none. Giraffes have always been giraffes. Long necks and all.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> i will say it one more time for you.....
> 
> we have a common ancestor, we did not evolve directly today's monkeys. We both brached off in the same tree.



So where is all this evidence supporting this, tommy?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> One of Darwin's ideas were that during a long drought, some imaginary 'pre-giraffe' were taller than others so they were able to reach the scarce leaves upon which it fed. These 'survivors' supposedly "left offsprings inheriting the same bodily pecularities, while individuals less favored in the same respects would have been the most likely to perish" (Darwin's Origin of Species).  Darwin concluded, "by this process long continued, an ordinary hoofed guadruped might be converted into a giraffe".
> 
> Well how the heck did the baby giraffes manage to survive during this incredible long drought?
> 
> And where are the fossil evidence supporting this?
> 
> There are none. Giraffes have always been giraffes. Long necks and all.




so i guess people have always been people, and there has been no change to our species for eternity?


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> And :shrug: that wasnt the question nor the point.  You (and others) Claim the proverbs and verses used in the Bible, were written for the people at the time.  So the Bible isnt for people of today?




They are written for both. Did people change? 




> Especially since the concepts in the proverbs have been found to be false.



And these are?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> the obvious answer is that food became harder to reach through environmental constraints meaning that tall or longer necked animals more easily fed and therefore were more likely to reproduce. shorter animals couldn't reach the food and reproduced less.
> 
> Natural secetion......


Okay, so giraffes are built with seven bone necks, like humans and horses, but with cow-like digestive systems and deer like bone structure (besides the neck).

As this deer-like, horse-like, cow-like species evolved into the 8 foot necked giraffe, where are the three foot necked transitional species?  5 foot?

None have been found - did you know that?  It's "likely" that we'll eventually find them.   But, not one intermediate has been there for us to see.  As far as we can tell, it was a deer like, horse like cow one day, and a giraffe the next.

If it took millions of years, why don't we see the intermediate?  If environment caused the change, why didn't they just move with the other parts of the herds that made it into other species?  If it took that long, the environmental changes couldn't have been that drastic to need the change.  If the changes were needed due to drastic changes in environment, hundreds or even tens of generations would not have been able to occur.

Do you see the hole in the theory?


----------



## baydoll

> Because there were many more than the 5,000 you cite that didnt believe. And where did this 5,000 number come from?



I'm sorry, my bad. It is 3,000:



> Acts 2:37-41
> 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.


----------



## Xaquin44

Tommy and NS .... you're really just trying to tell a few retards to 'smarten up'.  Heck, one doesn't even have a brain .... literally according to her own admission.

edit: do you really think you'll win an argument against someone who thinks they don't have a brain (I have no idea how this works ....)?

Anyone with more then 3 brain cells can see the argument has already been won, many times over by our side.  No point wasting time or frustration on the brain dead.

....

although, it would be interesting to find out what she makes of headaches.

and/or what she thinks is currently residing inside her skull.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> so i guess people have always been people, and there has been no change to our species for eternity?



Unless you can give us the fossil remains of the missing link then that would be correct.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> so i guess people have always been people, and there has been no change to our species for eternity?


I do understand the theory that monkeys and humans are supposedly descendants from a common ancestor (though none has been found ); but certainly the changes to humans that we've been able to see through fossil evidence is nothing on the order of an 8 foot neck - you do agree with that, right?

Could it be that diet, medicinal capabilities, gradual increases in tool usage, fire usage, intelligence, etc., can be the direct cause of this "evolution" of man - not random happenstance or environmental need (that doesn't actually cause change, it just enhances it, as you folks have so eloquently explained)?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Unless you can give us the fossil remains of the missing link then that would be correct.



so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?

History of Man
SPECIES TIME PERIOD 
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago 
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago 
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago 
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago 
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago 
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago 
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago 
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago 
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago 
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present



which one of these fossils would adam resemble?


----------



## foodcritic

*Complicated answers*



tommyjones said:


> and where did god sit when he created the universe?
> 
> where did he get the stuff (as we know from science, matter is not created or destroyed)?
> 
> what was there BEFORE god created the universe?
> 
> did god create life on other planets?
> 
> 
> answer those oh insightful one......



First...I don't claim to have all the creation answers.
Most sciencetists point to the "big bang" theory.  Many just as informed DO NOT.  They believe that the universe always existed.  There are huge fundemental philosophical contradictions between the two.  I suspect you would agree.

Many in science field want to reject the big bang if only because it smacks of creation.  Which is what I would call it.  In my opinion the big bang is God's creation.

If the whole universe has a start point, what started it?  It the universe is expanding out (most agree) then it must have had a starting point.

The chance of randomness being able to produce complex life that we know is statistically impossible.

We are asked to belive that a random act produces a universe that can produce a planet that can produce highly complex life.....sorry I dont have that kind of faith.


----------



## Xaquin44

Nucklesack said:


> Maybe she saw the Wizard of Oz and really related to the Scarecrow?



I thought that at first too, but then I thought that that book has witchcraft and thusly would be blasphemy.


----------



## foodcritic

This_person said:


> Okay, so giraffes are built with seven bone necks, like humans and horses, but with cow-like digestive systems and deer like bone structure (besides the neck).
> 
> As this deer-like, horse-like, cow-like species evolved into the 8 foot necked giraffe, where are the three foot necked transitional species?  5 foot?
> 
> None have been found - did you know that?  It's "likely" that we'll eventually find them.   But, not one intermediate has been there for us to see.  As far as we can tell, it was a deer like, horse like cow one day, and a giraffe the next.
> 
> If it took millions of years, why don't we see the intermediate?  If environment caused the change, why didn't they just move with the other parts of the herds that made it into other species?  If it took that long, the environmental changes couldn't have been that drastic to need the change.  If the changes were needed due to drastic changes in environment, hundreds or even tens of generations would not have been able to occur.
> 
> Do you see the hole in the theory?




I might add that MOST observable mutations have negative effects.  The two-headed frog etc, etc etc......


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Or it could just be a matter of Time? :shrug:


It _*could*_ be just a matter of time, or it could be the wrong answer.  Both are equally likely.





> Evolution has occurred for millions and billions of years correct? Some form of it, not getting into the validity of your _Poof its there_, nor our _Evolution from Algae_ (simple explanation).
> 
> We've only been fossil hunting for a miniscule amount of that time, say 300 years, to be generous.  To be fair theres been alot of time we werent doing anything related to fossils, since the assumption before that was the "_Poof_" theory


I will grant that.  The point is that there's not enough evidence there to conclude anything from it.  There are more than enough holes to be EQUALLY skeptical of _poof from algae_ or _poof from God_.

I don't want you to believe in God - at least that's not my goal in these discussions.  I want you to look as skeptically at the scientific theories as you do at the religious ones.  I'll say this again - neither stands up to critical, logical, common sense tests.  Both make people who are so inclined to agree with them feel good on the surface, but neither is ANYTHING more than faith the answer is out there and we just don't have the proof in our theory yet.

My belief is in God.  Not the Pope's God, nor Martin Luther's God, or Rev. Wright's God (for sure), but in my reading of the Bible, of other religious texts, of history, of nature and science.  I am a Christian, but with many problems with "the church" and some of the fundamental thinking of the current way of practicing.  The Bible is not all inclusive, and should not be viewed as such - much more research is necessary.  But, all that being said, I haven't a lick of proof to offer, and I don't claim to.


----------



## Toxick

Nucklesack said:


> Now this is where Toxic gets his panties in a twist, some funditard loses the ability to uphold a conversation on their end, and decides to post some condescending BS because they cant defend their Sky Pixie.





Bite me.


I don't get my panties in a twist because someone can't adequately defend their position or convince you to believe in something.

What torques my shorts is when you make comparisons (a la: Sharia in Texas) for the sake of provocation, and when you use diminutive terms like Sky Pixie for the sake of being offensive and condescending.

I also get irritated when you misrepresent my position and my arguments, like you do in the quote above. Especially when I had nothing to do with the relevant conversation.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?
> 
> History of Man
> SPECIES TIME PERIOD
> Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
> Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
> Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
> Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
> Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
> Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
> Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
> Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
> Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
> Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present
> 
> 
> 
> which one of these fossils would adam resemble?


From my point of view, Adam could have resembled any of them.  Or, none of them.  Perhaps that's what the Bible meant when saying "sons of God" and "sons of man" as two different types of people.

You're making the point, though, that we don't know, because you can't answer my questions (ie, YOU don't know).  That's good.  I'm getting through.


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> Because it is a *SCIENTIFIC *theory.  It is perfectly acceptable to teach a *SCIENTIFIC *theory in a *SCIENCE *class.  Creationism/Intelligent design is acceptable to teach in a Theology class.  Don't worry your not alone, This_Person has problems understanding this concept also
> 
> What your asking for is equal status between a *SCIENTIFIC *theory based on fact and discovery, versus a *THEOLOGICAL *belief based on the absense of fact and discovery (definition of faith).   Which is an acceptable subject in a Debate class



this is foolishness.  It's Ok when scientists present something.  They do so under the guise of "science".  
eventually we ask the how questions.  When probed with that question ( and having no answer) Dawkins can share with us that life MAY have come from bacteria or sum such thing that migrated here thu space and landed on the just so fertile plot of land called earth.  And then time, water and temp produced our cozy little world.

This is called Pan-Spermia just one more THEORY of how it all began.
Was that a faith based reponse or scientific.......


----------



## foodcritic

tommyjones said:


> so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?
> 
> History of Man
> SPECIES TIME PERIOD
> Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
> Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
> Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
> Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
> Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
> Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
> Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
> Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
> Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
> Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present
> 
> 
> 
> which one of these fossils would adam resemble?



First I have no idea what these tiny fragments may be.  However I suspect it we have some common ancestor it would take millions of millions of mutations to get from there to here.  Each mutation would have to makes it's way thur the entire population.  So I would suspect there should be thousands and thousands of prehuman populations.  This should be found by digging.

Unless of course you prescirbe to the punctuated equilibrium theory?


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> From my point of view, Adam could have resembled any of them.  Or, none of them.  Perhaps that's what the Bible meant when saying "sons of God" and "sons of man" as two different types of people.
> 
> You're making the point, though, that we don't know, because you can't answer my questions (ie, YOU don't know).  That's good.  I'm getting through.



actually, i am making the point that there is myrid evidence that evolution happens, and these precursers to modern man make that pretty clear.

I have answered your questions. you just dont want to accept the answers.


your book doesn't address the many humanoid fossils that we have found. you can massage the wordings all you want, but the story of adam and eve is pretty clear. either they were the parents of the first fossil group, or god tried several diffent iterations, but didn't find them worthy of putting in the book. (although everything else was spelled out)


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> actually, i am making the point that there is myrid evidence that evolution happens, and these precursers to modern man make that pretty clear.
> 
> I have answered your questions. you just dont want to accept the answers.


You _haven't_ answered my question, though.  You've demonstrated your belief in a change in the humanoid of man, and I dispute none of it.  However, you haven't gotten from the sponge to the man, while meanwhile getting from the sponge to the ficus, while meanwhile maintaining the sponge.  It just doesn't hold up to skeptical, critical thinking. :shrug:





> your book doesn't address the many humanoid fossils that we have found. you can massage the wordings all you want, but the story of adam and eve is pretty clear. either they were the parents of the first fossil group, or god tried several diffent iterations, but didn't find them worthy of putting in the book. (although everything else was spelled out)


A.  It's not "my" book.  Certainly not my _only_ book, anyway.
B.  If Adam and Eve were the parents of the first fossil group, how does that change away from anything I've said?  It's very possible that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid, without the form of modern humans.  And, they "evolved" into what we are today.  This goes against nothing in the Bible, nor in my beliefs.
C.  You say "everything else was spelled out" in the Bible.  This is far, far, far from the truth.  Most Christians will strongly deny this claim - I've never heard it from anyone but a non-believer.  The Bible has all you need to know for how to live your life, not all you want to know about everything.  I've said this over and over and over again.  It's not a science book, a history book, nor anything other than what it claims to be.

Evolution does not become true because there are misinterpretations or even inaccuracies in religion or religious people, just like creation does not become correct if evolution has holes it or is even flat out wrong insofar as trans-species evolution is concerned.  I'm not out to "take sides", as Xanquin did a few posts ago, nor belittle others' beliefs as so many have done in these threads.  My point is to merely get you to look at your own beliefs as critically, as skeptically as you look at mine, and admit it has no more answers than mine does - it's faith that it will be vindicated someday.


(BTW, you really fell down when I said there are no fossils of giraffes - I've been waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong with that so I can tell you I was just exaggerating to make a point, like saying the Bible has all things but this or all things but that, when that's not true either)


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> You _haven't_ answered my question, though.  You've demonstrated your belief in a change in the humanoid of man, and I dispute none of it.  However, you haven't gotten from the sponge to the man, while meanwhile getting from the sponge to the ficus, while meanwhile maintaining the sponge.  It just doesn't hold up to skeptical, critical thinking. :shrug:A.  It's not "my" book.  Certainly not my _only_ book, anyway.
> B.  If Adam and Eve were the parents of the first fossil group, how does that change away from anything I've said?  It's very possible that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid, without the form of modern humans.  And, they "evolved" into what we are today.  This goes against nothing in the Bible, nor in my beliefs.
> C.  You say "everything else was spelled out" in the Bible.  This is far, far, far from the truth.  Most Christians will strongly deny this claim - I've never heard it from anyone but a non-believer.  The Bible has all you need to know for how to live your life, not all you want to know about everything.  I've said this over and over and over again.  It's not a science book, a history book, nor anything other than what it claims to be.
> 
> Evolution does not become true because there are misinterpretations or even inaccuracies in religion or religious people, just like creation does not become correct if evolution has holes it or is even flat out wrong insofar as trans-species evolution is concerned.  I'm not out to "take sides", as Xanquin did a few posts ago, nor belittle others' beliefs as so many have done in these threads.  My point is to merely get you to look at your own beliefs as critically, as skeptically as you look at mine, and admit it has no more answers than mine does - it's faith that it will be vindicated someday.
> 
> 
> (BTW, you really fell down when I said there are no fossils of giraffes - I've been waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong with that so I can tell you I was just exaggerating to make a point, like saying the Bible has all things but this or all things but that, when that's not true either)



the story of genisis is very specific. in the beginning, on the first day..... etc.
It goes so far as to list all the begot'ing that was done and who desended from whom.otherwise the story would have been"god created homo-a, didn't like him so he created homo-b, too short, so he creeated homo-c, couldn't talk, so he created homo-d (all with mates BTW), then god created adam...."

it isn't. the story of genisis is very specific.


as for your ignorant claims about giraffe's and their necks. i just grew bored of your idiocy. you are either a tard, or you are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. either way, you have no logical argument.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> the story of genisis is very specific. in the beginning, on the first day..... etc.
> It goes so far as to list all the begot'ing that was done and who desended from whom.otherwise the story would have been"god created homo-a, didn't like him so he created homo-b, too short, so he creeated homo-c, couldn't talk, so he created homo-d (all with mates BTW), then god created adam...."
> 
> it isn't. the story of genisis is very specific.


You really think the "specifics" of the creation of the universe and all life on earth could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs and be specific?  And I'm the ignorant tard?  


> as for your ignorant claims about giraffe's and their necks. i just grew bored of your idiocy. you are either a tard, or you are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. either way, you have no logical argument.


You never disputed the logic of the argument until you couldn't answer the question.

Hey, it's your right to not think, just attack others.  I just had higher hopes for you.


----------



## foodcritic

This_person said:


> You really think the "specifics" of the creation of the universe and all life on earth could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs and be specific?  And I'm the ignorant tard?  You never disputed the logic of the argument until you couldn't answer the question.
> 
> Hey, it's your right to not think, just attack others.  I just had higher hopes for you.


----------



## godsbutterfly

Xaquin44 said:


> I thought that at first too, but then I thought that that book has witchcraft and thusly would be blasphemy.



 A little off-topic but - according to a Psychology Course I took "The Wizard of Oz" was supposed to be about the War (I think it was World War II). You should have heard how they laid all of that out.  I can't remember all of the details now but it was interesting to say the least!


----------



## Xaquin44

godsbutterfly said:


> A little off-topic but - according to a Psychology Course I took "The Wizard of Oz" was supposed to be about the War (I think it was World War II). You should have heard how they laid all of that out.  I can't remember all of the details now but it was interesting to say the least!



hmmm that does sound kind of cool.

when was that movie made?


----------



## toppick08

Xaquin44 said:


> hmmm that does sound kind of cool.
> 
> when was that movie made?



...never question my dinner date......understand...??


----------



## Xaquin44

ok?

I was just wondering =(


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> You really think the "specifics" of the creation of the universe and all life on earth could be summed up in a couple of paragraphs and be specific?  And I'm the ignorant tard?  You never disputed the logic of the argument until you couldn't answer the question.
> 
> Hey, it's your right to not think, just attack others.  I just had higher hopes for you.



look, the book talks specifically to adam, eve and all of their decendants. YOU are the only person i have ever heard  of who believes that god made other men. the rest of the christian world believes that the story of genisis is complete. (remember the whole incest thing from kain and able)

if god created all of these various versions of man, the story would have gone "god created homo-a, didn't like him so he created homo-b, too short, so he creeated homo-c, couldn't talk, so he created homo-d (all with mates BTW), then god created adam...."

otherwise adam and eve were the earliest of hominoids as they were more than 6000 years old.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> look, the book talks specifically to adam, eve and all of their decendants. YOU are the only person i have ever heard  of who believes that god made other men. the rest of the christian world believes that the story of genisis is complete. (remember the whole incest thing from kain and able)


The book does talk specifically to Adam and Eve.  But, what about the possibility that it is not the complete story?  Certainly, it never mentions Cain and Abel's wives.  It specifically says that a suitable mate could not be found for Adam, therefore God made Eve....  well, from where was the search before Eve?  Think God was trying Adam out on goats and horses, and decided, "Hey, I made a female of everything else, why not humans?"  That would make no sense.

No, the story is just of Adam and Eve in Gen 2, but that's not the full, 100% story.  People read into it what they learned in VBS, not what's actually there.





> if god created all of these various versions of man, the story would have gone "god created homo-a, didn't like him so he created homo-b, too short, so he creeated homo-c, couldn't talk, so he created homo-d (all with mates BTW), then god created adam...."
> 
> otherwise adam and eve were the earliest of hominoids as they were more than 6000 years old.


I disagree, for logical and common sense reasons.  But, what if they were the earliest hominoids?  Where does that 6000 year figure actually come from?  If the word "assume" is anywhere in the explaination, it's automatically very, very, very suspect.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> The book does talk specifically to Adam and Eve. * But, what about the possibility that it is not the complete story?  Certainly, it never mentions Cain and Abel's wives.  It specifically says that a suitable mate could not be found for Adam, therefore God made Eve....  well, from where was the search before Eve?  Think God was trying Adam out on goats and horses, and decided, "Hey, I made a female of everything else, why not humans?"  That would make no sense*.
> 
> No, the story is just of Adam and Eve in Gen 2, but that's not the full, 100% story.  People read into it what they learned in VBS, not what's actually there.I disagree, for logical and common sense reasons.  But, what if they were the earliest hominoids?  Where does that 6000 year figure actually come from?  If the word "assume" is anywhere in the explaination, it's automatically very, very, very suspect.



and there you go, you insert this 'maybe its not the whole story' BS so that you can us your book to justify ANY ARGUMENT.

if you are going to use the book as your proof, please stick to what is actually in the book and not stuff that you have made up to make it easier for you to accept what is in the book.


and the 6000 year thing comes from christians.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> and there you go, you insert this 'maybe its not the whole story' BS so that you can us your book to justify ANY ARGUMENT.


Well, it's really, really, really obvious to even the casual observer it's not the whole story.  It doesn't even pretend to be.  Whole millenium go by without a peep about what happened except who begot whom.  No one thinks it's the full story.





> if you are going to use the book as your proof, please stick to what is actually in the book and not stuff that you have made up to make it easier for you to accept what is in the book.


I don't use "the book" as proof of anything, except to refute what people say is in there when it's not.  Never once do I begin a point with, "well, the Bible says...."  You're fighting with the wrong person if that's your issue.

Besides, I've never made anything up about it.  I say "maybe it means this", and "maybe it means that" when people take small tidbits out of context and declare a meaning for it.  I put the tidbit back into context, and say there's more than one meaning to so many things.

I have no problem accepting what's in the book, and I have no problem understanding that it's not the whole story.  It contains everything I need to get out of it what I need to get out of it to live my life and worship my God.  It doesn't say anything about how to change my spark plugs, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't change my spark plugs - there are just some things God meant for us to figure out all on our own.  I have a very high regard for my fellow human being, and I believe God did overall as well.  That's why he gave us free will, and the intelligence that we have.





> and the 6000 year thing comes from christians.


And, they have to use the word "assume" to come up with it.  There is no direct Biblical timeframe from then to now without enormous assumptions, and most Christians do not accept the 6000 year thing


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Well, it's really, really, really obvious to even the casual observer it's not the whole story.  It doesn't even pretend to be.  *Whole millenium go by without a peep about what happened except who begot whom.*  No one thinks it's the full story.I don't use "the book" as proof of anything, except to refute what people say is in there when it's not.  Never once do I begin a point with, "well, the Bible says...."  You're fighting with the wrong person if that's your issue.
> 
> Besides, I've never made anything up about it.  I say "maybe it means this", and "maybe it means that" when people take small tidbits out of context and declare a meaning for it.  I put the tidbit back into context, and say there's more than one meaning to so many things.
> 
> I have no problem accepting what's in the book, and I have no problem understanding that it's not the whole story.  It contains everything I need to get out of it what I need to get out of it to live my life and worship my God.  It doesn't say anything about how to change my spark plugs, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't change my spark plugs - there are just some things God meant for us to figure out all on our own.  I have a very high regard for my fellow human being, and I believe God did overall as well.  That's why he gave us free will, and the intelligence that we have.And, they have to use the word "assume" to come up with it.  There is no direct Biblical timeframe from then to now without enormous assumptions, and most Christians do not accept the 6000 year thing



that is so retarded.....


so the only thing that is mentioned for mellineium is WHICH HUMANS WERE BORN TO WHOM. your "maybe" stance aside there is no mention of any other humans or humanoids. 


and if you want to play maybe, well MAYBE god is an alien and he took the forum of a human type only to keep from scaring the beejesus out of moses and the others. and MAYBE jesus was really an alien who took human form to check to see how we were progressing as a species, and MAYBE the prophetic second coming of christ is really going to be when the aliens come back to harvest all living humans for a food source.

see how your maybe works, it adds nothing to the argument because everything after it is made up.

as for the 6000 years, from what i understand it is a resonable accounting considering the generations of begoting. most christians use the "maybe" time didn't mean the same thing in biblical times so we can't figure it out to aviod the issue.


----------



## baydoll

Good Morning, All!

I am a bit busier than normal this morning so please bear with me.....I will try and answer all your questions today....if not today, hopefully tomorrow. I am trying my best! 

Thanks for being patient!


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> so the only thing that is mentioned for mellineium is WHICH HUMANS WERE BORN TO WHOM. your "maybe" stance aside there is no mention of any other humans or humanoids.


So, no mention means they didn't exist?  You're not mentioned, do you exist?





> and if you want to play maybe, well MAYBE god is an alien and he took the forum of a human type only to keep from scaring the beejesus out of moses and the others. and MAYBE jesus was really an alien who took human form to check to see how we were progressing as a species, and MAYBE the prophetic second coming of christ is really going to be when the aliens come back to harvest all living humans for a food source.
> 
> see how your maybe works, it adds nothing to the argument because everything after it is made up.


Maybe God is an alien, but that's certainly not within the confines of how the book reads.  It pretty much says He's not, so it wouldn't fit into the story line.

However, when there are gaping holes in the story, and only a very small number of ways in which the holes could be filled and fit the story line, a maybe here and there makes a lot of sense.  Especially when the hole is meaningless in the overall scheme of the story.  And, whether other people were made besides Adam and Eve is really very meaningless to the overall story.

And, it still keeps us bogged down in this meaningless bickering over whether they were or weren't.  So, for the sake of argument, they were.  So what?  What does that have to do with fossil records?  You asked if Adam and Eve looked like us, and I replied that there's nothing in the story to suggest they look like modern humans - can we move on now, or do you want to express your communication skills by using the word "retarded" one more time?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> as for the 6000 years, from what i understand it is a resonable accounting considering the generations of begoting. most christians use the "maybe" time didn't mean the same thing in biblical times so we can't figure it out to aviod the issue.


Interesting edit.....

"Reasonable accounting" means assuming stuff.  Won't fly.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Marie, 2ndAmendment and Hessian (I think) specifically


I mean no disrespect to any of them, but it just assumes too much to be meaningful.


----------



## baydoll

> so how do you and TP explain all the various huminoid precursers to Homo sapien that have been found as fossils?




In most of those cases nobody really knows for sure. For instance:




> Ramapithicus.
> 
> This animal was long believed to be the 1st branch from that line of apes which evolved into man about 14 million years ago. Noted scientist Dr. Elwyn Simons stated confidently, "The pathway can now be traced with little fear of contradiction from generalized hominids - to the genus HOMO." The crucial importance of Ramapithicus as an early ancestor of hominids is evident in this comment by Simons in Time magazine (Nov. 7, 1977):- "Ramapithicus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is." How true a statement! From what evidence are these conclusions drawn in the 1st place ? Once again a few teeth and a jaw bone. From this many drawings have been made of Ramapithicus walking upright!
> 
> Renowned secular anthropologist Richard Leaky (American Scientist 1976, 64:174) stated that "The case for Ramapithicus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragments of fossil material leave many questions open". Zilman and Lowenstein went even further by stating that "Ramapithicus walking upright has been reconstructed from only jaws and teeth".
> 
> The legitimacy of this ape has been sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution. However, Harvard University paleontologist David Pilbeam, a hugely secular scientist summed up what all know is true (Science 82, April 6-7): "A group of creatures once thought to be our oldest ancestors may have been firmly bumped out of the human family tree. Many paleontologists have maintained that Ramamorphs are our oldest known ancestors. These conclusions were drawn from little more than a few jaw bones and some teeth. Truthfully, it appears to be nothing more than an orang-utan ancestor."


----------



## baydoll

The bolded on your list: 

SPECIES TIME PERIOD 
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago 
* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago *
*Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago *
*Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago *
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago 
*Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago *
*Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago* 
Homo sapiens archaic  400 to 200 thousand years ago 
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago 
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present 



> Australopithecus.  Donald Johanson in his book "Lucy" refers to the "australopithecine mess" - and it definitely is that. The very word Australopithecus means "southern ape" because the first fossils were found in South Africa by Dr. Raymond Dart, professor of anatomy at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg.
> Dart was convinced that some teeth were man-like and thus concluded it represented a transitional between apes and man. His opinions on the matter were largely scorned by the scientists of his time (1924) who considered it nothing more than a chimpanzee. The skull was soon known derisively as "Dart's baby". Perhaps no one has studied the australopithecines more than Sir Solly Zuckerman who wrote: "Evolution as a Process" in 1954: "There is indeed no question which the australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of humans and living ape skulls. It is the ape so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any difference between modern ape and Australopithecus."
> 
> Australopithecus afarensis. Commonly know as "LUCY" - Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson was a half complete skeleton he named after the Beetle's song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". A year later 13 more similar skeletons were found. Remarkably the skull was even more ape-like than other australopithecines.
> 
> In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features."
> On the basis of a hip and knee joint found later, however, Johnson "decided" that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the original Australopithecus).
> 
> However, there are conflicting reports as to whether Lucy did actually walk upright. The following quote was taken from The Institute for Creation Research web-site.
> 
> "The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all". To top
> 
> Homo habilis. The taxon Homo habilis had an illegitimate birth when Mary Leakey discovered some badly shattered skull fragments in 1959. Her husband Louis made the comment that it was nothing more than a "damned australopithecine". His attitude soon changed however when he found stone tools near the site of Homo habilis. Jumping into the fire, he quickly named it Homo and publicized the find widely. He was soon discredited when other australopithecines were found in Africa, also with stone tools. Homo habilis was "demoted" to australopithecine. This didn't stop Leakey though. In 1964, he found four more specimens in Olduvai Gorge. These he claimed had bigger brains than Australopithecus and surely deserved to be classified as Homo habilis. Measurements of the cranial capacity were nearly impossible since the skulls were so badly crushed but, nonetheless, it was concluded that they averaged 642 cc's, or 200 cc's larger than Australopithecus and he considered that enough to make them Homo.
> 
> Not everyone was as enthusiastic as Leakey was about his new "handymen". Homo habilis was soon considered an empty taxon that was inadequately proposed.
> 
> New life was breathed into Homo habilis by Louis and Mary's son, Richard Leakey who was working in the Lake Rudolf area in Kenya. Leakey found numerous stone tools and 40 specimens of Australopithecus. Then, in 1972, he he made a discovery that was to shake the world of paleo-anthropology to it's foundations. He found the toolmaker his father had long sought in vain. Perhaps he found even more than he bargained for. He found several fossilized bone fragments of a skull which his wife Meave carefully assembled to make a nearly complete skull minus the lower jaw. The skull was named KNMER 1470 for its registration at the Kenya National Museum in East Rudolf.
> 
> The skull capacity was difficult to measure because of the condition of the assemblage but was estimated to be 800 cc's (later lowered to 750 cc's), much larger than so called ape-men skulls. There were only small eyebrow ridges, no crest and a domed skull typical of humans today. Indeed it appeared to be a human skull. Professor A. Cave who first demonstrated that Neanderthal man was completely human examined 1470 in London and concluded: "As far as I can see, typically human". In addition, Leakey found 2 complete femurs, a part of a third femur and parts of a tibia and fibula near the skull which he said "cannot be readily distinguished from Homo-sapien."
> 
> Let's talk about the dating of 1470. In 1969 samples of KBS tuft from just above the layer in which 1470 was found was sent to Cambridge University for potassium argon dating. Three different test gave an age of 220 million years old +or- 7 million years ! This was considered unacceptable for for this strata given its fossil content, so the errors were blamed on "extraneous" argon. Several more tests were done, and the best, most acceptable date was placed at 2.61 million years old. In National Geographic of June 1973 Richard Leakey stated," Either we toss out the 1470 skull or we toss out all our theories of early man. It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. 1470 leaves in ruin the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary changes."
> 
> What was the problem? The problem, given the age of 2.61 myo, made 1470 contemporaneous with Australopithecus, if not older - yet looked identical to modern man. This absolutely unseated Australopithecus as ancestor of modern man!
> 
> In later lectures, Richard Leakey never made reference to 1470, preferring perhaps, to sweep it under the rug. However, in a PBS documentary in 1990 he stated, "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving." This from the world's foremost paleo-anthropologist !


----------



## baydoll

Continuing on:



> Homo erectus (Java and Peking man). This specimen is undoubtedly the weakest link in the human evolution scenario. Shortly after Darwin published his Origin of the Species, a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois, went in search of Pithecanthropus in Sumatra. Dubois had been a student of Ernst Haeckel, famous for his "biogenetic Law" that stated a human embryo went through a sequential evolutionary stage of its ancestors. It is now well known through medical science that this is far from true. What else is well known is that Haeckel falsified most of his data.
> 
> Having failed to get financial assistance from the Dutch government, Dubois enlisted in the French Foreign Legion to gain his goal. While in Sumatra, he heard about a skull found on the nearby island of Java. He was able to secure the skull and even found another like it at the same location. However, these skulls were too human looking to be of any use to someone looking for an ape-man. In 1891, he found a molar tooth along the Solo river. Later the same year, he found another molar and an ape-like skull cap. The following year he found a human femur 46 feet from where he found the skull cap. Although at first he thought it was a chimpanzee skull, after consulting with Haeckel, he declared the whole collection to belong to one and the same creature, stating it was "admirably suited to the role of missing link".
> This missing link arrived just in time to salvage Darwin's theory as it was under fire because of the total lack of transitional forms found or not found as the case was. By joining an ape skull with a human femur he had truly created an ape-man. He originally claimed that the strata he was working in was Pliocene but after discovering his ape-man, he decided it was really tertiary. We now know both to be false.
> When taking his specimen on tour, he could not find a single legitimate scientist to chair any of his meetings. Nonetheless, newspapers and magazines embraced him wholeheartedly, even drawing many pictures of complete ape-men. As Dubois came under increasing attack, he became very secretive about his fossil finds - to the point of hiding them under his dining room floor and refusing to let them be examined. A few years before his death in 1940, Dubois finally admitted the skulls were in his opinion those of a large Gibbon. Evolutionists however refused to accept this and to this day it is still being taught as a transitional, though all modern scientists have debunked it.
> 
> The other fossil in the Homo erectus taxon is Peking man. An almost complete skull cap was discovered in 1929 in an in-filled limestone cave near Peking, China (now Beijing). This ape-like skull cap was similar to Java man. The cave continued to be investigated until the beginning of World War II. Fragments of 14 skulls, 12 lower jaws and 147 teeth were found. Also, several skeletons of modern man were found slightly higher. Once again, bone fragments were assembled from various places to form a skull. For example, the jaw bone came from a level 85 feet higher than the skull and face bones. After hiring a sculptor to model a woman's face from the made-up skull, the result was named "Nellie". Nellie has appeared in almost all textbooks.
> As usual, at the site where "she" was found was found also numerous stone tools and evidence of butchery and fires. Recently, Chinese scientists have found over a 1,000 stone tools, the skulls of over 100 modern day animals, as well as 6 modern human skulls. The skulls and all fragments showed evidence of being shattered or broken in. In addition, a layer of ashes nearly 4 feet thick was found. The Chinese assume Homo erectus made these tools, despite the fact that the brain capacity of the put-together skulls was only that of a small chimp. The whole and complete modern human skulls found were completely discredited.


----------



## baydoll

I'll be back later....


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> So, no mention means they didn't exist?  You're not mentioned, do you exist?Maybe God is an alien, but that's certainly not within the confines of how the book reads.  It pretty much says He's not, so it wouldn't fit into the story line.
> 
> However, when there are gaping holes in the story, and only a very small number of ways in which the holes could be filled and fit the story line, a maybe here and there makes a lot of sense.  Especially when the hole is meaningless in the overall scheme of the story.  And, whether other people were made besides Adam and Eve is really very meaningless to the overall story.
> 
> And, it still keeps us bogged down in this meaningless bickering over whether they were or weren't.  So, for the sake of argument, they were.  So what?  What does that have to do with fossil records?  You asked if Adam and Eve looked like us, and I replied that there's nothing in the story to suggest they look like modern humans - can we move on now, or do you want to express your communication skills by using the word "retarded" one more time?



but all those maybes are just as valid as the ones you use to defend your position, none of which are supported by the book.


you have 'made' the hole in the adam and eve story so you can insert your additional peoples, _but that's certainly not within the confines of how the book reads. _


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Continuing on:



nice cut and paste, but what does it really prove? only that there are many many fossils on record and scientist are debating their validity and meaning. BTW what about the 5 or 6 that you didn't bold, i guess those are all valid?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And thats the problem that YOU, Toxic, Psyops and others have, because even though you have Faith, your a (little) more reasonable and practical.


"Reasonable and practical" is a problem?  

Yes, I really do understand, I just thought it was funny


> Unlike when Baydoll, Italian, Bavarian, FoodCritic, Marie, 2nd, and others (BCP) make threads and/or posts about another belief, theory, lifestyle they do it based on the Absoluteness of the Bible.  What is in the Bible is infallable, and if its in there it is correct and not for interpretation.  The earth is 6000 years old, the Ark did hold 2 of every animal, the Bat is a bird (or a mistranslation), Adam and Eve were the only ones in Eden.
> 
> You hold a more practical* interpretation *of the Bible, they do not believe in an Interpretation at all.


Well, I do think that the Bible is infallable, when it comes to salvation.  Every single person who reads it is going to come away with their own interpretations, that's just human nature.  If we were there and saw what was going on in each story, we'd have different interpretations too.  Whether the earth is 6000 years old, or if great assumptions had to go into making that statement is really meaningless (to me) in the grand scheme of Biblical knowledge.  Whether the Ark held two of every clean animal, or two of every clean animal that Noah could find and store, or whatever, is really meaningless to the grand scheme of the story.  Whether Adam and Eve were the only two in the garden, or the only two humans ever created is really meaningless in the grand scheme of the story.  I think Adam and Eve were created, as humans, as immortals, ate the "fruit" from the "tree" of knowledge of good and evil, and set our fates (which, honestly, was already set).  Whether Joanie and Chachi were made also (concurrent, before, or after) really is meaningless as to whether there is a God that created mankind, don't you think?

Too literal a read (or, rather, to narrow minded a view) can be misinforming.  For example, when God set our lifespans at 120 years, we didn't all automatically live exactly 120 years.  Even the people at the time were far older, and they didn't just immediately die.  Their offspring didn't immediatley live to exactly 120 years.... God slowly changed us over time to have that as a nominal maximum life time - we evolved into that status.

Science and the Bible are not enemies of information.  I rarely see a reason for the animousity given Biblical followers by scientific followers, or vice versa.  We all want the same thing, basically - what's the truth?  If humans evolved over time, that does not negate how we got here.  (which is why my argument against evolution is sponge to human end, not human evolution)  If the universe began with a "Big Bang", or a thought of God, what's the actual difference?  Science can prove the how's, as I say, and that's a good thing for all. But, it doesn't negate God, and God's existance doesn't negate scientific discovery in any way.

Anyway, that's been my whole point all along.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> but all those maybes are just as valid as the ones you use to defend your position, none of which are supported by the book.


Well, no.  The idea of Jesus as an alien is specifically shown to be wrong, because the origin of Jesus is deliniated in pretty good detail (enough, anyway, to demonstrate he wasn't an alien).  So, not really as valid at all





> you have 'made' the hole in the adam and eve story so you can insert your additional peoples, _but that's certainly not within the confines of how the book reads. _


What hole did *I* make?    Where Cain and Abel's wives came from (well, actually, there's never a mention of Abel ever having a wife, but....), or who Cain thought would kill him is a hole just hanging there all without my intervention at all.  Who God and Adam sought as a suitable mate for Adam before Eve was created is an open hole there all without me at all.  I just use context clues and the good sense God gave me to come up with potential (and unnecessary) answers as to what MAY fill those holes.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Well, no.  The idea of Jesus as an alien is specifically shown to be wrong, because the origin of Jesus is deliniated in pretty good detail (enough, anyway, to demonstrate he wasn't an alien).  So, not really as valid at all
> What hole did *I* make?    Where Cain and Abel's wives came from (well, actually, there's never a mention of Abel ever having a wife, but....), or who Cain thought would kill him is a hole just hanging there all without my intervention at all.  Who God and Adam sought as a suitable mate for Adam before Eve was created is an open hole there all without me at all.  *I just use context clues and the good sense God gave me to come up with potential (and unnecessary) answers as to what MAY fill those holes*.


i see what you did there , so you assumed it. 


It is every bit as valid. as i said maybe God is an alien and since jesus is gods son.....


you can fight it because you dont agree, but the fact of the matter is that it is just as valid of a maybe as your idiotical theroy that cain married some person whos creation you assumed but is specifically not mentioned.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> i see what you did there , so you assumed it.


Yep, just like I said I did 


> It is every bit as valid. as i said maybe God is an alien and since jesus is gods son.....
> 
> you can fight it because you dont agree, but the fact of the matter is that it is just as valid of a maybe as your idiotical theroy that cain married some person whos creation you assumed but is specifically not mentioned.


Well, other than specific words showing where Jesus came from (thereby making it not true for Jesus), I agree it's a possibility.  Just not a very logical one, or one that fits in the story of God being the creator of the universe (unless, of course, by alien you mean alien to the universe, and then it would fit into the story).

So, other than mine fitting into the story as an insignificant omission, and yours not fitting into the story at all, they're both possibilities.  And, neither one means much of anything towards understanding what's in the Bible insofar as it's meaning actually goes.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Yep, just like I said I did Well, other than specific words showing where Jesus came from (thereby making it not true for Jesus), I agree it's a possibility.  Just not a very logical one, or one that fits in the story of God being the creator of the universe (unless, of course, by alien you mean alien to the universe, and then it would fit into the story).
> 
> So, other than mine fitting into the story as an insignificant omission, and yours not fitting into the story at all, they're both possibilities.  And, neither one means much of anything towards understanding what's in the Bible insofar as it's meaning actually goes.



funny that you find your rediculous assumption valid, but my equally rediculous assumption not.

the reason is simply that it doesn't fit YOUR interpretation.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> funny that you find your rediculous assumption valid, but my equally rediculous assumption not.
> 
> the reason is simply that it doesn't fit YOUR interpretation.


So, the creator of the universe came from the universe He created?  And, that in some way makes sense to you?  



I'm still trying to figure your point to all of this.

I'll stipulate that Adam and Eve could very well have been the only two, and that trillions of people came from them.  And, we have fossil evidence of that.  What were you driving at from that?


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> So, the creator of the universe came from the universe He created?  And, that in some way makes sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to figure your point to all of this.
> 
> *I'll stipulate that Adam and Eve could very well have been the only two, and that trillions of people came from them*.  And, we have fossil evidence of that.  What were you driving at from that?



well isn't that nice of you to stipulate to EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS 
what fossil evidence points to adam and eve as the original two humans that all of humanity from which all of humanity was begotten?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> well isn't that nice of you to stipulate to EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
> what fossil evidence points to adam and eve as the original two humans that all of humanity from which all of humanity was begotten?


I don't understand the question - if we don't specifically find the exact humans that were Adam and Eve, then they didn't exist?  Or, what is it you're asking?


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> I don't understand the question - if we don't specifically find the exact humans that were Adam and Eve, then they didn't exist?  Or, what is it you're asking?



you said "and we have fossil evidence of that"

where is this fossil evidence, and what humanoid form does it point to adam and eve resembling?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> you said "and we have fossil evidence of that"
> 
> where is this fossil evidence, and what humanoid form does it point to adam and eve resembling?


fossil evidence of mankind existing into the past.  If it came across that I was saying that we have specific fossil evidence of Adam and Eve exactly, I misspoke.  I was trying to get back onto topic - you asked what I made of fossil evidence of humanoids.  I make of it that it is fossil evidence that humanoids existed.  I was trying to find out what significance that had towards anything at all.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> fossil evidence of mankind existing into the past.  If it came across that I was saying that we have specific fossil evidence of Adam and Eve exactly, I misspoke.  I was trying to get back onto topic - you asked what I made of fossil evidence of humanoids.  I make of it that it is fossil evidence that humanoids existed.  I was trying to find out what significance that had towards anything at all.



well it either goes to show that humans evolved OR that god made numerous attempts at the human form, neither of which is covered in the story of creation. As much as you would like to deny it, the story is quite complete as to the lineage of the human animal, so these fossils through quite a monkey wrench into the whole judeo/christian religion's explaination.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> well it either goes to show that humans evolved OR that god made numerous attempts at the human form, neither of which is covered in the story of creation. As much as you would like to deny it, the story is quite complete as to the lineage of the human animal, so these fossils through quite a monkey wrench into the whole judeo/christian religion's explaination.


The only problem with your monkey wrench being thrown in is it doesn't exist.


Nowhere does it imply Adam and Eve looked like us today


Unless you read into the story of a woman who was as yet uncreated, undocumented, and unknown being Cain's wife, or the story not explaining that this whole different person described as Cain's wife was really Adam's wife (and it just doesn't explain it), you have to realize that there is more to the story than just what's being specified.  That could mean a sister, that could mean a whole different creation.  Who was it Cain was worried would kill him when he pleaded with God (Gen 4:14) "...and whoever finds me will kill me."?  If he was only worried about the only two other people that are in writing at that point, don't you think he would either A) not be worried his mom and dad would kill him, or B) say "...so if Mom or Dad find me, they'll kill me."?


And, perhaps, they're not our ancestors - just other animals that God created (since, again, it doesn't list them all specifically, just in general terms -- thus, not the complete story, even though you keep saying it is)  They could very well be fossils of exactly what they look like, but either did not pre-date humans (and, like the missing links, we'll find 'em one day fer shur!! ), or they did predate humans out of the Garden of Eden, but not in an ancestor/offspring kind of way.

No, I don't see a monkey wrench at all.....  Sorry!


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> The only problem with your monkey wrench being thrown in is it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it imply Adam and Eve looked like us today
> 
> 
> Unless you read into the story of a woman who was as yet uncreated, undocumented, and unknown being Cain's wife, or the story not explaining that this whole different person described as Cain's wife was really Adam's wife (and it just doesn't explain it), you have to realize that there is more to the story than just what's being specified.  That could mean a sister, that could mean a whole different creation.  Who was it Cain was worried would kill him when he pleaded with God (Gen 4:14) "...and whoever finds me will kill me."?  If he was only worried about the only two other people that are in writing at that point, don't you think he would either A) not be worried his mom and dad would kill him, or B) say "...so if Mom or Dad find me, they'll kill me."?
> 
> 
> And, perhaps, they're not our ancestors - just other animals that God created (since, again, it doesn't list them all specifically, just in general terms -- thus, not the complete story, even though you keep saying it is)  They could very well be fossils of exactly what they look like, but either did not pre-date humans (and, like the missing links, we'll find 'em one day fer shur!! ), or they did predate humans out of the Garden of Eden, but not in an ancestor/offspring kind of way.
> 
> *No, I don't see a monkey wrench at all.....  Sorry*!




only because you have changed the story through your assumptions to fit the facts.
you really need to go back to sunday school.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> only because you have changed the story through your assumptions to fit the facts.
> you really need to go back to sunday school.


Please enlighten me as to where I've changed the story


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Please enlighten me as to where I've changed the story



first you created antoher group of people to one of which cain was married.
then you say that it is possible that adam and eve were prehuman ancestors of ours and didn't look like us, assuming that we somehow evolved from them into our current species.
then you say that the fossils of prehuman man were created by god outside the garden and were not like adam and eve, but a lesser species
and that was just in one post.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> first you created antoher group of people to one of which cain was married.


I didn't create them, they're in the story!  Cain knew his wife - so therefore she must have existed (at least within the bounds of the story).  Since she wasn't specifically named as Eve, the only woman so far named, she must have come from SOMEWHERE, right?  So, where did she come from?  A couple of potential answers - sister, other creation.  If you can think of any other potential answers, or (since you keep saying it's a complete story) show me where it says where she came from without assuming anything, please do.





> then you say that it is possible that adam and eve were prehuman ancestors of ours and didn't look like us, assuming that we somehow evolved from them into our current species.


Is that not a possibility?  Does that not fit into the story?





> then you say that the fossils of prehuman man were created by god outside the garden and were not like adam and eve, but a lesser species


Is that not a possibility?  Does that not fit into the story?

Just because you don't get it, don't attack me for having an open mind.  Try opening yours instead.  I didn't say any of these ARE the answer, I listed them as each potential answers


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Marie, if your going to cut and paste an answer, you need to cite a source.  If your going to just post any line of garbage you think supports your argument, i'll start posting Calvin and Hobbes, it wouldnt be any different.




Marie? Who is this Marie person? That's not me, dear. 

As for the links, I will most indeed cite the sources for you.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> nice cut and paste, but what does it really prove? only that there are many many fossils on record and scientist are debating their validity and meaning.




Why thank you! 

It proves that your chart doesn't provide the whole story. Yes there are many many fossils on record but none of them have been proven to be the missing link. Scientists are now EXAMINING these 'fossils' to see if they are indeed what evolutionists say they are. It's called taking an honest look at things instead of playing guessing games and then labeling it as truth. 




> BTW what about the 5 or 6 that you didn't bold, i guess those are all valid



I'm glad you asked! 

Let's examine them, shall we?

Here's your chart:

SPECIES TIME PERIOD 
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago 
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago 
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago 
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago 
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago 
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago 
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago 
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago 
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago 
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present

First up Ardipithicus ramidus: (from an excellent article from Apologetic Press link to follow)



> The banner on the front cover of the July 23, 2001 issue of Time announced somewhat authoritatively, “How Apes Became Humans,” and claimed that a new hominid discovery tells “scientists about how our oldest ancestors stood on two legs and made an evolutionary leap.” Yet those empty cover-words become almost secondary as readers find themselves captivated by the “ape-man” drawing that blankets the entire cover. Unfortunately, many readers may never make it to page 57, where staff writers Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman admit that the discoverers of the fossils under discussion, Yohannes Haile-Selassie and his colleagues, “haven’t collected enough bones yet to reconstruct with great precision what kadabba looked like.” That fact, however, did not prevent the magazine’s editors from putting an intimidating, full-color spread of this new creature on the cover—an image that becomes somewhat laughable in light of the actual facts. A thorough investigation of this “scientific discovery” reveals that this creature was “reconstructed” from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth)—of which, the only bone that might provide the artist with any structural information of the head is a piece of the right mandible.
> In their article, “One Giant Step for Mankind,” Lemonick and Dorfman invite the reader to “meet your newfound ancestor, a chimplike forest creature that stood up and walked 5.8 million years ago” (p. 54). This new creature has been named Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (kadabba—taken from the Afar language—means “basal family ancestor”) and lived, according to evolutionists, between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago. This beats the previous record holder by nearly a million-and-a-half years, and according to evolutionists’ estimates, puts them “very close to the time when humans and chimps first went their separate ways” (p. 56). Lemonick and Dorfman went on to comment: “…[N]o one has yet been able to say precisely when that first evolutionary step on the road to humanity happened, nor what might have triggered it. But a discovery reported last week [July 12—BH] in the journal Nature has brought paleontologists tantalizingly close to answering both these questions” (for the original Nature article, see Haile-Selassie, 2001). That’s a pretty tall statement, considering the fact that researchers had only the following bone fragments to discern all of this information: fragment of the right mandible, one intermediate hand phalanx, left humerus and ulna, distal humerus, proximal hand phalanx fragment, left clavicle fragment, proximal foot phalanx, and a few teeth. Additionally, these bones were not laid out neatly in typical skeletal format, all grouped together just waiting for researchers to dig them up. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”
> Prominently displayed in the center of page 59 of the Time article is a tiny fragment of a toe bone. Lemonick and Dorfman wrote: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.” Amazing, is it not, what one can discern from a single toe bone! The human foot contains 26 individual bones, (see Netter, 1994, p. 492), and yet evolutionary scientists claim that they can distinguish walking characteristics from just a single bone? That bold caption also fails to inform the reader that this toe bone was found in 1999, is “chronologically younger” than the other bone fragments, and was found in a separate location from the rest of the fossils. In fact, the bone fragments that make up this new specimen came from five localities of the Middle Awash in Ethiopia: Saitune Dora, Alaya, Asa Koma, Digiba Dora, and Amba East (Haile-Selassie, 2001, 412:181). Lemonick and Dorfman admitted: “Exactly how this hominid walked is still something of a mystery, though with a different skeletal structure, its gait would have been unlike ours” (p. 57). But that did not stop the authors from speculating that “kadabba almost certainly walked upright much of the time” and that “many of its behaviors undoubtedly resembled those of chimpanzees today” (p. 57). Interesting speculation, especially in view of the fact that the ages of the fossilized bone fragments composing kadabba vary by hundreds of thousands of years, even using the evolutionists’ own dating schemes.
> While Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba undoubtedly will stir controversy among evolutionists as to exactly where it fits into the “evolutionary family tree,” it does little to answer the questions of “how apes became human,” or when and why these creatures became bipedal. Given the small measurements of the fossilized bones collected, kadabba is very likely to find itself relegated to the same branch as the infamous Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis)—simply a fossilized ape.


Apologetics Press - Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba or “What Bone is the Toe Bone Connected To"?

I'm just getting started...more to come!


----------



## baydoll

Second on your list are the Australopithecus family, the Ape family. 


*Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago 
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago 
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago 
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago*



> The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.
> All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.
> 
> This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.186 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.187
> That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:
> A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.188
> Darwinism Refuted.com


----------



## baydoll

And the LAST group on your list: HUMAN

 Homo habilis
 Homo erectus 
Homo sapiens archaic 
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 
Homo sapiens sapiens 



First: Homo Habilis 



> In June 1973, the national Geographic magazine pulbinshed an article that was devasting to the conventional ideas about human evolution. It reported a new find in Kenya, Africa by anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leading evolutionary expert on the so called Hominid ancestors of the homo sapiens. The discovery was called Skull 1470 for its catalong number in the Kenya national museum.
> 
> Leaky made and astounding challenge, highlighted prominently in bold letters by National Geographic: “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man.”
> 
> The anthropologist said this fossil was 2.8 million years old yet it belongs to man’s genus. In other words, Leakey claimed it was more man-like than any of the other near man relics on the chart. The problem was that the skull was found neneath vocanic ash that had been acceptably dated for years by evolutionists reckoning as 2.6 million yars old. That would make a human looking ancestor over a million years older than our nearest ape-like ancestor. It’s no wonder Leakey made the puzzling statement “It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings.”
> 
> And because of the skull’s “surprisingly large braincase,” Leakey shockingly admitted, “it leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”
> 
> Keep in mind that the National Geographic Society is a major financial supporter of field explorations (including Leakey’s) to find fresh new speciments to put on the line up of man’s evolutionary origins. It is worth noting that they are willing to publish such discoveries with considerable fanfare even when they are controversial.
> 
> Let’s realize the implications of Leakey’s comments. He stated that the chart with which we have all become familiar with is now a notion left in ruins. The orderly sequence of evolutionary change apparently does not rate any better than a notion.
> 
> In his thoroughly researched book Bones of Contention, author Marvin Lubenow brings to light that the facial bones were not clearly connected enough to know for sure if the face should be flat like a human or with jaw extended like an ape. As he further pointed out, “Home habilis is a flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that can legitimately be called human, and other fossils that are definetly NOT HUMAN.”
> 
> Well now we have a problem. Evolutionists can’t have a candidate for a missing link that is admitted to have a skull qualifying as a modern man, but that dates back to over two and a half million years ago. This paradox continues for almost a decade.
> 
> Finally, in 1981, evolutionists came up with a technical way to adjust the the radiometric date and assign a revised age for the volcanic ash strata under which the skull was found. Now they are saying it less than two million years old and the othe homo habilis fossils are dated much younger. All of them are contemporary with the human looking characters called Homo erectus near the end of the chart.
> 
> Since Homo habilis physically looks like a true man, regardless of the age they assign it how can it be something evolving to man? What would they do if they found human looking bones in the same geologic age assigned to the dinosaurs? Will they push man’s origin back 100 million years or figure a way to reassign the age of rocks again? Just wait and you will learn about even more mysterious finds (mysterious only because they don’t fit the commonly accepted evolutionary beliefs about human beginnings.) Dennis R Peterson


(sorry no link as this is from his book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation which is AWESOME btw)

And the rest to follow....


----------



## baydoll

And the rest:

Homo erectus 
Homo sapiens archaic 
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 
Homo sapiens sapiens 






> According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.
> 
> The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native.
> Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .
> The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197
> The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)
> The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
> 
> 
> Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:
> One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.199
> Homo erectus AND THE ABORIGINES
> The Turkana Boy skeleton shown at the side is the best preserved example of Homo erectus that has so far been discovered. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old-fossil and people of our day. The Australian aboriginal skeleton above particularly resembles Turkana Boy. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features.
> Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus . The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man):
> 
> Homo erectus 'S SAILING CULTURE "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" According to this article in the March 14, 1998, issue of New Scientist, the people that evolutionists call Homo erectus were sailing 700,000 years ago. It is impossible, of course, to think of people who possessed the knowledge, technology and culture to go sailing as primitive.
> When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens , it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.200
> It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way:
> Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.201
> The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens , but rather a race within Homo sapiens ." On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus , a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus , Homo Habilis , and Homo rudolfensis ). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history.
> 
> 
> Darwinism Refuted.com


----------



## baydoll

So what does this prove? Let’s go back and look at that chart of yours again:




> SPECIES TIME PERIOD
> Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
> Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
> Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
> Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
> Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
> 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
> Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
> Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
> Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
> Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present



We have an Ardipithicus ramidus: a ‘creature’  'reconstructed' from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth) bones that were not found lying neatly all grouped together neatly in typical skeletal format. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”

We have the Australopithecus group which is shown to be ALL MONKEYS.

And then we have the last group showing to be HUMAN: 

Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic 
Homo sapiens neandertalensis , 
Homo sapiens  

So what does your chart prove?

 All the fossils that have been found are either ALL APE or ALL HUMAN. (or fake) No real fossil has been proven to be transitional. 

In other words: contrary to evolution, man was made completely human from the beginning.

There are no missing links.


----------



## Xaquin44

ok, I have baydoll/marie or whoever on ignore, but I have to know .... did she find her brain?


----------



## Xaquin44

Nucklesack said:


> Nah she's off to see the wizard



godspeed (tee hee)


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Nah she's off to see the wizard


I'm not taking sides in this end of the debate, because I see no point in debating whether or not people have changed.

However, what was it she said in her conclusion that was wrong, scientifically speaking?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> So what does this prove? Let’s go back and look at that chart of yours again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have an Ardipithicus ramidus: a ‘creature’  'reconstructed' from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth) bones that were not found lying neatly all grouped together neatly in typical skeletal format. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”
> 
> We have the Australopithecus group which is shown to be ALL MONKEYS.
> 
> And then we have the last group showing to be HUMAN:
> 
> Homo erectus
> Homo sapiens archaic
> Homo sapiens neandertalensis ,
> Homo sapiens
> 
> So what does your chart prove?
> 
> All the fossils that have been found are either ALL APE or ALL HUMAN. (or fake) No real fossil has been proven to be transitional.
> 
> In other words: contrary to evolution, man was made completely human from the beginning.
> 
> There are no missing links.



the chart proves that there are numerous fossils that are accepted to represent various stages of development of the human for. Just because you can find a website that says it aint true doesn't mean it aint true.

so how old was the earth of the bible again?

and did you ever find that bung or yours or are you still saying that since you can't see it it isn't there?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> the chart proves that there are numerous fossils that are accepted to represent various stages of development of the human for. Just because you can find a website that says it aint true doesn't mean it aint true.



So by all means provide us all those transitional fossils from monkeys to human.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> She didnt have a conclusion.  Without an attempt to form her own independent thought, she instead copied and pasted, from anti-science sites, articles with their version of anti-evolution.
> 
> Darwinism Refuted​Evolution is bunk because God would not create a system that would make it necessary.  This is actually contrary to what you, This_Person, has admitting to believe in.


It's very true that I don't believe in the young earth concept.  I don't think the first few days reported in Genesis are literal 24 hour days, as there was no sun nor earth by which to measure normal "days" by our standards.

However, I wasn't referring to the site she was posting from, I was referring to her conclusions, from this post:

baydoll said:


> So what does this prove? Let’s go back and look at that chart of yours again:
> 
> We have an Ardipithicus ramidus: a ‘creature’  'reconstructed' from only 6 bone fragments (and a few teeth) bones that were not found lying neatly all grouped together neatly in typical skeletal format. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”
> 
> We have the Australopithecus group which is shown to be ALL MONKEYS.
> 
> And then we have the last group showing to be HUMAN:
> 
> Homo erectus
> Homo sapiens archaic
> Homo sapiens neandertalensis ,
> Homo sapiens
> 
> So what does your chart prove?
> 
> All the fossils that have been found are either ALL APE or ALL HUMAN. (or fake) No real fossil has been proven to be transitional.
> 
> In other words: contrary to evolution, man was made completely human from the beginning.
> 
> There are no missing links.





> Do you really feel her answers came from Science?


I think, regardless of the ideological bent of her source, there could be validity to her skepticism.  I didn't do the research she did into where the fossils actually came from or mean (because, again, I see no reason to think the first human fossils could not be from Adam and Eve era, or even after that and we just don't have fossils found from the Adam and Eve era yet, etc., etc., from my previous posts); but I do think that it's likely, from my own previous looking into how many scientific discoveries go, that the idea that a handful of related bones from scattered areas are the basis of a single "conclusion".  And, from my previous looking into things, I've seen huge gaping holes in the evolutionary chain, with the same idea posted here earlier - that "fer shur we're gonna find them suckers", the presumed links between what's been found.

So, that was where I was coming from.





> This is no different than an Anti-McCain site posting greatness about Obama.  Did you feel Fahrenheit 9/11 was an unbiased biography?  Or do you realize that the the points in the movie were slanted, with competing evidence ignored and thrown because it didnt support the agenda?


All of this is true, that's why I asked, with genuine interest, as to what you thought of her conclusions.  She seemed to be posting some interesting tidbits of fact regarding the source information of the evolutionary chain Tommy posted, so I was looking for either a "yeah, that's all true, but we still think it's the way it went", or "wow, I didn't realize what Tommy posted was so Fahrenheit 9/11ish in its source data" kind of response (if you follow what I mean).


----------



## baydoll

> so how old was the earth of the bible again?



I haven't a clue...it doesn't say.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> the chart proves that there are numerous fossils that are accepted to represent various stages of development of the human for. Just because you can find a website that says it aint true doesn't mean it aint true.


Similarly, just because you find a web site that says it's true doesn't mean it is.  Can you refute what she's saying - that basically what you posted represents all ape, all human, or scattered bits of unrelated and grossly incomplete bone fragments (nothing more than conjecture as to whether they even belonged to the same animal)?

I'm not arguing she's right, and I'm not arguing you're right.  You stated a chain, she broke the links.  Is she demonstratably wrong, or was your chain?





> so how old was the earth of the bible again?


It doesn't say, and anything to the contrary is pure conjecture also.


----------



## baydoll

> and did you ever find that bung or yours or are you still saying that since you can't see it it isn't there?



Did you ever find that evidence of yours proving that God didn't create all of this or are YOU still saying this entire world we live in from tiniest cell (jam packed with DNA) to the vast universe (with it's billions of stars and solar systems)  all came into being from nothing since you can't see God so therefore He must not be there ?


----------



## baydoll

> She didnt have a conclusion. Without an attempt to form her own independent thought, she instead copied and pasted, from anti-science sites, articles with their version of anti-evolution.




That wasn't my point. I posted information examining Tommy's chart showing another side of the story. Whomever is reading can draw their OWN intelligent conclusion from the information I posted. I leave it up to the reader. Unlike you, I think everybody is entitled to post and see ALL sides of things, not just the pro-darwinist, pro-evolutionary, anti-God sides. 



> from anti-science sites, articles with their version of anti-evolution.




Oh God forbid! What an awful horrible thing I did! 

  I could just as easily say the same thing about anything you or Tommy post. I could say we can't believe anything you say or post because you are both darwinists anti-God/anti-Christian. 


And so what if I posted articles that were not pro-evolution pro-darwinist anti-God? Does that make the information I posted false? The truth (according to you and Tommy) doesn't lie in what I post but in the quality of the evidence in those articles. WHICH  the two of you won't even examine. You dismiss it out of hand. So how do you know if what I posted is valid or not? You don't. Instead, you give us YOUR opinions those articles are false even though you didn't read them.   


So how do you know the information I posted is wrong? Have you've gone through them point by point and refuted them yet? If not, what are you waiting for?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> That wasn't my point. I posted information examining Tommy's chart showing another side of the story. Whomever is reading can draw their OWN intelligent conclusion from the information I posted. I leave it up to the reader. Unlike you, I think everybody is entitled to post and see ALL sides of things, not just the pro-darwinist, pro-evolutionary, anti-God sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh God forbid! What an awful horrible thing I did!
> 
> I could just as easily say the same thing about anything you or Tommy post. I could say we can't believe anything you say or post because you are both darwinists anti-God/anti-Christian.
> 
> 
> And so what if I posted articles that were not pro-evolution pro-darwinist anti-God? Does that make the information I posted false? The truth (according to you and Tommy) doesn't lie in what I post but in the quality of the evidence in those articles. WHICH  the two of you won't even examine. You dismiss it out of hand. So how do you know if what I posted is valid or not? You don't. Instead, you give us YOUR opinions those articles are false even though you didn't read them.
> 
> 
> So how do you know the information I posted is wrong? Have you've gone through them point by point and refuted them yet? If not, what are you waiting for?



i read your articles, and i found them to be biased.....

additionally they didn't present any real evidence to support their opinions.

and so how old do you think the earth is? an opinion and how you formed it, please.


----------



## baydoll

> I believe he was asking you for your opinion


__________________

No he wasn't. He asked what the Bible said about the age of the earth. I told him it wasn't in there. If you think I'm wrong, then by all means show us where it says in the Bible the exact age of this earth.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> i read your articles, and i found them to be biased.....



No surprises there. 




> additionally they didn't present any real evidence to support their opinions.



For instance?



> and so how old do you think the earth is? an opinion and how you formed it, please



I already told you. I have no idea.


----------



## baydoll

I'll be back later. I have work to do.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You do not prove a negative, this is a basic concept in a conversation or discussion.
> 
> The rules of logic (and science) dictate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied.  An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true.  That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is.  Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up.  Using the Bible to prove the Bible is nonsensical, and contrary to rational thought, since there are numerous religions that believe differently than yours.
> 
> Without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with.  The antithesis of this is Faith.
> 
> Every argument a "believer" make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true.  The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists.  No assertion is being made by an atheist, except the demand that your statements have the same basis of logic as ours.
> 
> During the course of a discussion, a person (Atheist) who rejects an assertion (Belieiver - "God did this") does not need to provide any justification for it.  The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion.  The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all.  Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience.  Basically that what is true for others might not be true for themselves.  That is Faith but not logicically thinking based on facts.
> 
> It is not possible to *prove *that God does not exist or God created "this".  Since “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location.  You can not prove the non-existence of mystical beings.  As such the fallacy of using :
> 
> A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true.  The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical.  Of course you can’t prove that God didnt *(insert something here)* – no one even knows what God is supposed to be
> 
> In the context of a conversation the Onus is on the one making the assertion, You must *prove *God did *(insert something here)*


Using this criteria, would you then agree that abiogenesis and human evolution, as taught, should not be believed, as the only thing backing them up are conjecture, and not proof?


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> i read your articles, and i found them to be biased.....
> 
> additionally they didn't present any real evidence to support their opinions.


So, certainly you can point to the source of the fossils, and demonstratably refute what she reported, right?


----------



## Xaquin44

NS, you know he's just going to go on and froth 'WELL CREATIONISM IS E THOERY TOO LOLZ Y CAN"T IT BE IN TEH SIENCE CLASS 2???!?'


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> So, certainly you can point to the source of the fossils, and demonstratably refute what she reported, right?



Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology

well here is a list of fossils and their meanings. 

demonstrably shows that scientist disagree with her assertions


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> If you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old based on your Bible, while rejecting the bibles of previous religions, any "Research" that you are working on is going to be tainted by that mentality.
> 
> *Scientests (real ones) on the other hand, who also may be tainted, are at least predisposed to the concept of not having Predetermination (like say believing the earth is only 6,000 years old) and are interested in research without influence.
> 
> (*Remember we are talking about the Concept of Scientests versus Theists who set out with an already determined outcome.)
> 
> And this is the concept that trips you up consistantly.  While some REPORTER may post an article stating "Yada Yada has been found" Scientests on the other hand theorize that "Ardipithicus ramidus" could be a transitional species.


So, what I read you as saying is that there are no proven transitional species for humans, just theories that they may be out there.  And, thus, no proof of anything.  Is that right?





> They may uses evidence to back up that theory (seems to be a missing concept on the other side) but its still a theory.  Until they gather enough evidence to support otherwise they posit it as a theory.


And, lacking evidence, it should not be believed (based upon your previous statement).





> The interesting tidbits of "Fact" (you made a ) that baydoll posted were not based on a Scientific or Logical basis.  They start out with the predisposition that God's system didnt need evolution, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  With those two concepts you eliminate any need for research since your outcome is already determined.


All she said was where the bones came from, and whether the types of fossils were deemed ape or human.  How is that not not based ona scientific or logical basis?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Using that criteria, Abiogensis and Human Evolution, are totally fine to be taught in a SCIENCE class as a SCIENTIFIC theory.  I do believe that is how they are taught.  First the SCIENCE class discuss what a theory (as a concept) is, then go onto what the SCIENTIFIC theory regarding Evolution (in general) is.  They then go onto teach what the Facts and supporting evidence in regards to that theory.


Well, there are hundreds of theories, why pick this one to teach as opposed to any other?  It has absolutely no more to back it up than any other - and (based upon your words) should therefore not be believed.

You know it's not taught as theory, but as fact.  You have said yourself that it's a fact, just waiting for proof!  


> Whether or not they are to be believed? That is a personal decision.  I will say it makes more sense to believe in a theory where there is an active search for facts and supporting evidence, than a concept of a Make Believe entity that by definition doesnt need fact or evidence.


True, by definition, if it were evidenced, it would no longer be a faith.  However, 

Nucklesack said:


> An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up.


therefore, not believing evolution - from sponge to human, not from 5'7" human to 5'9" human - would be the most logical, scientific position to take, right?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And using that criteria, would you agree that any discussion that inserts a "Prove God did/didnt (*insert something here*)" is inherently (sp?) flawed?


I would agree that "Prove God didn't do ________" is flawed, or "Prove God doesn't exist" is flawed, as it cannot logically be done.

However, the likelihood of proving God's existance is exactly equal to the likelihood of proving human evolution, or proving abiogenesis as a source of life on Earth, so I would hold the "Prove God exists" or "prove evolution from abiogenesis to modern human" is equally flawed due to no possible test, repeatable and peer reviewable, being able to be performed.

Okay, that's not true.  If God Himself came down and proved it, it could happen.  However, abiogenesis can't be proven, and neither can evolution from sponge to human.  So, it's more likely God will come down, but we can't devise the test, only He can, so it's highly, highly, highly unlikely.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I understand your problem with looking in the mirror, since you have them big blinders on.  Your entire argument is God did it, and for you thats the end. Using that concept you ignore all contrary evidence.


Careful there, Pot!  


> No we just expect, as a normal course of a discussion, for your to present facts to support your argument.  Using the Bible to prove the Bible isnt valid.


But, her arguments regarding Tommy's posting wasn't the Bible.  It was research into the basis for Tommy's assertion of the evolution of man.  It used the scientific data's flaws to dispute itself.  That's a pretty big difference than what you're claiming here, don't you think?





> Your articles do not allow the Scientific Method, because they do not allow the possiblity that they could be wrong.  Science on the other hand, by its nature, allows this.


Which is what she did - demonstrate that they may be wrong with the science, thus refuting Tommy's implied conclusion.

I agree using the Bible to prove the Bible doesn't work, just like using flawed science to come to a valid scientific conclusion doesn't work.  I really believe that's her point.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Oh i know, especially since they do not understand one is a Science concept and the other is a Theist concept.


Well, let's see about that....

Nucklesack said:


> The concept of a the Scientific Method is
> 
> Ask a Question
> Do Background Research
> Construct a Hypothesis
> Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
> Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
> Communicate Your Results


Abiogenesis fails the scientific method you describe on #4, #5, and #6.  Human evolution from a sponge fails on #3-6.  Using the same criteria required of Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis and Human Evolution (pre-hominoid) fails.  This is my argument all along, and you've yet to refute it.





> For some reason they do not think a Science class should be teaching Science.  They do not understand that it is perfectly valid for Science to teach this concept, since it is a Concept developed by the subject being taught.


And, how is that different for ID?  We ask the question, develop a hypothesis, research the source of the hypothesis, and develop concepts and ideas from that hypothesis and research, stagnated by an inability to actually test.  It honestly sounds exactly the same to me.





> The other response will be why not teach Intelligent Design/Creationism, which would be a valid discussion in a Theological Class.  Teaching it in a Science class would be like a Buddhist Class teaching Christianity (wonder if they grasp that concept).
> 
> The Reason Science is taught in schools, besides the obvious, is that it is not based on any Religious concepts.  It doesnt lend credence to any religion over the others.  A theology class could exist to cover Creationism, but to be valid should teach ALL creationist events and not just the ones that they themselves agree with.  Since they (typically) wont allow that they are the ones denying the Theological class.


ID is not based upon any particular religion either.  The one and only difference is whether stuff just happened inexplicably in a manner we can't comprehend, or whether it happened by cause of an intelligence with purpose - that we can't comprehend.  It doesn't seek to justify the purpose, the Creator, or any particular religion's concepts.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Because its the one based on Logic and Reason.


No, conjecture.  That's different





> Not all of evolution is understood.


Or proven.  Or provable.





> Only to someone of faith (remember the absence of Logic Fact and Evidence).  This is the concept you do not grasp, since the antithesis of a "Creator" is Randomness.


I don't have a problem grasping the concept at all.  I have a problem seeing evidence where there is none.  That a fossil exists is evidence of nothing other than a fossil exists.  Similarities in fossils does not prove a chain of ancestry - that's conjecture, with a predisposition that the fossil tends to fit.





> The theory that we started from Algae (Gajillion years ago) and evolved into what we are today, is personaly easier to swallow than _*Poof *_Mankind is here.


Easier to swallow does not make it true, any more than my (and trillions of other people) finding order in the universe and expecting a causation of the order easier to swallow.  PROOF is there for neither.





> But then that isnt what you've alleged either, you've agreed that we've evolved, you yourself admitted that "Adam" could have been a Lucy type hominid.  You agree that there has been Evolution.


I agree it's a possibility.  I also agree it's a possibility that we evolved from sponges and algae.  I see no more proof of that than God breathed life into the clay and made mankind.  Absolutely none.  And, I see no possible way to test either.  Therefore, I see no reason to believe abiogenesis or evolution from sponges more than Genesis.

However, other things in my life give ME (not for anyone else, just me) reason to believe in a diety.  For me, this tips the scales to Genesis.





> Where you seem to have problems is with the idea of where the original foundation come from.  You'd rather a modified _*Poof*_ concept with either many attempts at "Adam" or a Neanderthal type of "Adam" that evolved.  If your willing to accept we evolved from a "Lucy" is it really that hard of a concept to take that devolution farther down the chain?


Yes.  

I look first at the likelihood of even a single cell of life - the odds are astonomically (no pun intended) against it.  So, the best we can presume is a single cell.  That single cell had to have _just_ the right conditions to stay alive, and split.  Now, from these two cells, which still had to have just the right conditions, we have to have all of ocean, amphibious, land animals, plants, insects, etc., etc. form.  And, have mass extinctions, and repopulate (some, exactly as they were when they were close to extinction).

Life forming in the first place loses the credibility test, and the shere volume of what has sprung up from that life is even less likely.  

Given what we know of the universe and it's origins, and how that fits into the story of Creation - not to mention the fossils we have found (and HAVEN'T found), the idea that an intelligence beyond my comprehension placed life on Earth, and it evolved from the state He put it here to it's current state is far more likely.

Oil isn't from dead dinasours.  We know this, and yet the common concept is that it is.  I can't look into a petri dish and see my ancestors.  I know this, but I clearly can't convince you of this.


----------



## baydoll

> I understand your problem with looking in the mirror, since you have them big blinders on. Your entire argument is God did it, and for you thats the end. Using that concept you ignore all contrary evidence.



Actually I look at ALL the evidence, contrary or otherwise. Do you? 




> Your entire argument is God did it, and for you thats the end. Using that concept you ignore all contrary evidence



 Your entire argument revolves around that this all came from nothing and for YOU that's the end. Since you won't even acknowledge any of what I post because they are contrary to your beliefs, I would say them big blinders fit you pretty good.  At least I look at both sides and draw my own conclusions.  


And just why is it that our conclusions (those who believe in an Intelligent Design-God) immediately are thought to be biased but your conclusions are automatically considered objective? You have a worldview just like we (Intelligent Designer people) do. As clearly seen by yours and Tommy's posts, your views are not neutral in the least and actually requires more faith than us Intelligent Design folks.


----------



## Xaquin44

'If she only had a brain'


----------



## baydoll

> Because the ENTIRE premise of your "conclusion" is that an Unknowing, Unprovable, Untestable, and Not agreed upon (since there are MANY religions other than your own) Entity created it all.



So where did we come from then? 



> The alternative "conclusion" is actively researching how we came about



Oh? Like this?



> From An Unknown Chemical in the unknown primordial past through...
> 
> Unknown Processes that no longer exist produced..
> 
> Unknown life forms that are not to be found anywhere but could, through...
> 
> Unknown Reproduction Methods, spawn new life in an....
> 
> Unknown Oceanic Soup Complex at an....
> 
> Uknown Time and Place.



yeah, real scientific you all are.


----------



## baydoll

> No we just expect, as a normal course of a discussion, for your to present facts to support your argument. Using the Bible to prove the Bible isnt valid.



Oh? Point out all those times I presented the Bible to support my arguments, thanks.


----------



## baydoll

> Never said i didnt read them. Unfortunately for you, in the guise of a discussion, the premise of the articles as a Scientific refutal are themselves false.



So point all those errors out. Let's see which ones are not scientific.   




> The concept of a the Scientific Method is
> Ask a Question - Theists already have the answer
> Do Background Research - Theist use the Bible to prove itself
> Construct a Hypothesis
> Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
> Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion - Theists fail steps 3, 4 & 5, because As a method you have to accept that your research will not support your Hypothesis. Theists reject the concept that God may not exist, as such any evidence to the contrary is also rejected.
> Communicate Your Results
> Your articles do not allow the Scientific Method, because they do not allow the possiblity that they could be wrong. Science on the other hand, by its nature, allows this




So would your beliefs pass the same criteria?


----------



## baydoll

> The theory that we started from Algae (Gajillion years ago) and evolved into what we are today, is personaly easier to swallow than Poof Mankind is here.



So where DID the first life come from?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> So tell us where did we come from then?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Like this?:
> 
> An Unknown Chemical in the unknown primordial past through...
> 
> Unknown Processes that no longer exist produced..
> 
> Unknown life forms that are not to be found anywhere but could, through...
> 
> Unknown Reproduction Methods, spawn new life in an....
> 
> Unknown Oceanic Soup Complex at an....
> 
> Uknown Time and Place.
> 
> yeah, real scientific you all are.




Look, I'm all about faith. I've argued high and low around here in favor of Christianity, and I've put myself up for ridicule supporting it (right, NS?), and I consider myself a decent Christian - although I do have my faults.


However, I'm also all about science. I am, in fact, considered a "scientist" (although, it's computer science, rather than physics, biology or the old-school sciences). 

Science is all about empericism. That's all it is. Observance and recording of facts to obtain knowledge. It is cold. It's calculating. It is - by definition - brutally honest and does not allow room for error.

And by its very nature, it admits its own shortcomings.

That science admits when there are holes or unknowns or variables _does not negate or invalidate the known facts _which *do* exist. It simply means that as of the current moment, some piece of information is not known. 

Personally, I think there is *more* than enough scientific evidence to support evolution. There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution. Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of _every single generation_ recording _every single mutation_ or change for _every family tree_ going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.

Now, if you simply want to say, "The devil put the fossils there" then, by all means, do so, but Science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence ALL points to one conclusion, and one conclusion only.

That's what science is.




There is, however, *no scientific evidence* which leads to the conclusion that God shaped this flying mudball with His bare hands and then  sprinkled animals, plants and people on it, over the course of seven days and nights.

And therefore this should *not* be taught in a Science Class, because it's not Science, until such time as we find God's palm-print under the ice of Antarctica.

Which would, of course, reinforce the Creationists point of view on a scientific level.


----------



## Xaquin44

Toxick said:


> Look, I'm all about faith. I've argued high and low around here in favor of Christianity, and I've put myself up for ridicule supporting it (right, NS?), and I consider myself a decent Christian - although I do have my faults.
> 
> 
> However, I'm also all about science. I am, in fact, considered a "scientist" (although, it's computer science, rather than physics, biology or the old-school sciences).
> 
> Science is all about empericism. That's all it is. Observance and recording of facts to obtain knowledge. It is cold. It's calculating. It is - by definition - brutally honest and does not allow room for error.
> 
> And by its very nature, it admits its own shortcomings.
> 
> That science admits when there are holes or unknowns or variables _does not negate or invalidate the known facts _which *do* exist. It simply means that as of the current moment, some piece of information is not known.
> 
> Personally, I think there is *more* than enough scientific evidence to support evolution. There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution. Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of _every single generation_ recording _every single mutation_ or change for _every family tree_ going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.
> 
> Now, if you simply want to say, "The devil put the fossils there" then, by all means, do so, but Science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence ALL points to one conclusion, and one conclusion only.
> 
> That's what science is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is, however, *no scientific evidence* which leads to the conclusion that God shaped this flying mudball with His bare hands and then  sprinkled animals, plants and people on it, over the course of seven days and nights.
> 
> And therefore this should *not* be taught in a Science Class, because it's not Science, until such time as we find God's palm-print under the ice of Antarctica.
> 
> Which would, of course, reinforce the Creationists point of view on a scientific level.



great post =)

unfortunatly, we're arguing with people who refuse to see what science is.


----------



## Toxick

Nucklesack said:


> Your ridiculously intolerant



I am not, and I'm offended that you would suggest that I am.



















I get jokes.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> Personally, I think there is *more* than enough scientific evidence to support evolution.


And, personally, I don't have a problem with that  


> There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution.


No, the "evidence" lends credence to the theory, it is not in and of itself evidence of evolution.  The pieces fit the facts, but they are not in any way conclusive (unless you consider the answer before the proof).  That they 're even linked is arguable, though it is the common belief.





> Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of _every single generation_ recording _every single mutation_ or change for _every family tree_ going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.


I don't believe it is just a house of cards, personally.  However, there's yet to be  a test which can show that a sponge can offspring-through-mutation to a bird and plant.  For evolution to work, such a test should be fairly simple to devise - take a bunch of water and rock and wait.  We have an example on Mars of just such an experiment occuring, with no resulting life.  We could take our best guess and recreate pre-historic factors in a large lab, and wait.  Take a guess why we haven't done this......

Nothing shows a link from algae to animal.  Does that mean it's not true?  No, not at all.  But, it means that it's no more proven that God.


----------



## Toxick

This_person said:


> No, the "evidence" lends credence to the theory, it is not in and of itself evidence of evolution.



Paraphrasing Gil Grissom: Evidence is simply evidence. It is what it is. Nothing more and nothing less.

And I think there is enough evidence to show us that evolution happened (and by extension, *is *happening), and that to say it's not a sound scientific axiom is just plain wrong.

Now, I (and any scientist who respects Science itself) will admit that there *is* a chance that _someday, someone_ might uncover a piece of evidence that totally blows the entire theory of evolution out of the water, and in 1000 years, we'll look back at the "loony theory of evolution" and be amused, much the same way that today we look back at the naivete of people who thought earth was the center of the universe, and is flat to boot.

However, the likelihood of such a find is very small, and since it has not been found yet, it cannot be integrated into what we call Science.




This_person said:


> The pieces fit the facts, but they are not in any way conclusive (unless you consider the answer before the proof).  That they 're even linked is arguable, though it is the common belief.



I don't think the concept of evolution was pulled from anyone's ass, and scientists all decided to manipulate the facts to fit the conclusion. It came from observation and discovery and research. I believe that the only way you can say it is _not conclusive_ is if you're demanding a record or fossil of every generation detailing the minute changes of each all the way back to the cradle of life.

That ain't going to happen thanks to the cyclic nature of the earth, plate tectonics, erosion and other natural happenstance that destroy such evidence, such as the fact that animals eat other animals.

On a larger scale, we can work backwards with what we do have... and we have enough evidence to get from Z to Y to X to W, and we have the brains capable of arriving at the conclusion that the same thing happened for D, C, B & A as well.

Of course evidence fades the farther you reach back into the mists of time. So, OK, we don't have the fossilized evidence which links sponges to lemurs. But with the preponderance of evidence that does exist between wolves and dogs, and apes and humans, and mammoths and elephants and birds and dinosaurs, it's absurd to think that such links do not occur farther back in the timeline.


I've never worked with numbers higher than 10e+65.... but I'd be willing to bet my life that the numbers up there work exactly like they do between 0 and 100. I'll accept this, even though I don't have actual hands-on evidence to prove it.




This_person said:


> I don't believe it is just a house of cards, personally.  However, there's yet to be  a test which can show that a sponge can offspring-through-mutation to a bird and plant.  For evolution to work, such a test should be fairly simple to devise - take a bunch of water and rock and wait.



Wait, what? 150 millionish years?

Tell you what, you find a lab and perform that expirement. Let me know how it turns out.


The only evidence we have is historical in nature - ironically enough, much like the evidence which led me to God. 

You work with what you have.






This_person said:


> Nothing shows a link from algae to animal.  Does that mean it's not true?  No, not at all.  But, it means that it's no more proven that God.



Well, since I've proven God (at least to myself - and I have no desire to argue about it today), I believe you're correct.

But I know what you mean...

Since the links from algae to animal were probably all eaten or destroyed in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions of years ago, there will never be such evidence. However with the evidence that exists of links between more modern animals, it's pretty hard for me to believe that there are no links between the ancient critters as well.

Much like it's hard for me to believe that astronomical numbers behave differently than mundane numbers.


----------



## godsbutterfly

Xaquin44 said:


> hmmm that does sound kind of cool.
> 
> when was that movie made?



Check your P.M. I sent you some info.!


----------



## Xaquin44

godsbutterfly said:


> Check your P.M. I sent you some info.!



hmmmm I didn't get it =(

I deleted all my old messages .... maybe it was full

sorry


----------



## godsbutterfly

Xaquin44 said:


> hmmmm I didn't get it =(
> 
> I deleted all my old messages .... maybe it was full
> 
> sorry



I sent it again.


----------



## godsbutterfly

toppick08 said:


> ...never question my dinner date......understand...??



It's okay, Toppick, I got this one!


----------



## Xaquin44

godsbutterfly said:


> I sent it again.



got it this time

thanks =)


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your right the difference between _Poof we exist_ (ID) or evolution is Different.


I disagree.  It's exactly the same.





> We can argue about whether its provable or not, (which infers you know the future), thats why its a Theory.  Unlike your beliefs answer, which does differ from others.  Not only is Your "answer" not Proven nore Provable, there is no research to refute or substantiate it.  The entire premise is you just have to have Faith.


So, we can agree that neither is provable nor proven.  We disagree about whether there is any substantial proof of evolution from sponge to human (and ficus).  Please provide......





> You are arguing about evidence? The entire concept of your Belief, is you have to have Faith, Evidence is not necessary and is actually a detriment.


Evidence is not a detriment.  However, I stipulate I have none. I'm pointing out you don't either.





> Your belief requires that you do NOT uphold yourself to the same standard you are expecting of Science.  Even though Science itself, by definition, holds itself to this high standard.


No, just the opposite.  Science requires a test to call ID science.  However, where is the test for abiogenesis?  Where is the test for sponge to both human and algae.  Gradual changes in a biped over hundreds of thousands of years seems likely from the fossil evidence (so does flying machines thousands of years ago from the archeological evidence, but that's a whole different story - talking about how evidence is "read"), but it still doesn't demonstrate that it did happen, much less that the sponge was it's great grandfather.





> Fossil evidence, Fossil similiarities and the evidence of Evolution that are visible today all lend to a greater understanding and evidence of the Theory of evolution.


No, it tends to fit the pre-determined answer, much like is maligned from ID.  Seeing a single type of living machine change, but not drastically in shape or form, is not the same as seeing life come from non-life, nor seeing a sponge mutate through the generations to both a ficus and a human.  It just doesn't meet the same idea





> Your "answer" to this is to ignore the Evidence and instead have Faith.


No, it's to continue researching with an OPEN mind.[/quote]The problem is of those trillions of other people, a MINORITY of them feel the same as yourself, you ignore the TRILLIONS who believe and feel they are correct in their "answer".[/quote]You're speaking of Christianity alone.  I'm speaking all through time of all religions.  The vast majority of people throughout time have believed in a Creator.  Not necessarily the same one I do, but a Creator nonetheless.





> abiogensis and evolution are not the same thing.
> 
> You admit to believing in evolution, you yourself recognize the factors leading to it.  we may argue the starting point, but to argue that Genesis is as valid as Abiogensis is silly.
> 
> One of those two demands that you deny a quest for knowledge


I still know they're not the same thing, but for one to work, the other must also work.

Believing in Genesis, or any other creation story, does NOT demand denying a quest for knowledge.  The EXACT SAME studies should be done either way, to help determine how it happened.  Just, with an open mind, or closed one.  And, until some test is devised, abiogenesis is exactly the same as Genesis - some force with which we are unaware took some amount of time doing something we don't know about from the substances available on earth and made living stuff out of it.  They have the same basic argument - we don't know, but maybe ______





> And using logic, the above scenario is truly much more the likelihood than an Unknowing, Unprovable, Untestable, and Not agreed upon (since there are MANY religions other than your own) Entity created it all


That's the beauty of ID vs. religion - it doesn't have to be agreed upon.  It doesn't assume one or the other is more valid.  

However, lack of a creator and a creator are both "Unknowing, Unprovable, Untestable, and Not agreed upon".  That is the basis of our disagreement.





> This is where Faith bites you in the rump.  You claim that shere volume of Life that has sprung up prevents the likelihood, yet you believe in the Noah Flood?  Dont we exist after the "Flood"?  Isnt the likelihood of all the life that has sprung up after the "flood" also an indicator (using your logic) that the "Flood" didnt occur as transcribed?


Well, it presumed life still existed, including plant life and animal life, sea life, insects, etc., etc.  It didn't die off, or change form from sponge to ficus and puppy both.  So, no, it doesn't make that leap of logic at all.





> Doesnt the Flood itself fail a credibility test?


Literally the whole earth, yes.  But, again, was that the whole world known at the time, or the whole world.  And, either way, it does not fit into any portion of ID.  ID is about the origins of life, not about the Old Testament.  ID is not, as I understand the actual thought behind it (differently than the court cases against it) Christian Creation - it's Intelligent Designer encompassing no religion or further stories.  ID does not imply Jesus is truely the Messiah, nor that American Indians were visited by Jesus, nor any other specific religion.  Moot point.





> what about
> Do you believe in Dinosaurs?
> If so did Man exist at the same time as them?
> If answer A is yes, and B is No doesnt that leave a hole in your "credibility test"?


No, why?





> One doesnt predispose another.  You are making the universe fit Creation.  This is an arrogant attitude of YOUR belief.  Other beliefs, which are just as valid (maybe not to you) have different ideas.


But, I'm not like an evolutionist - I don't dismiss other possibilities simply because I have a belief.  ID is all about incorporating ALL beliefs, but has a creator.





> If you want to see your ancestors look at a photograph.  According to your already admittance, if you want to see a Genetic ancestor look at Lucy.


Lucy may or may not be my ancestor, but I believe it's possible - that's different than it's my belief.  It's my belief to look at all the possibilities, and treat them equally until there is some kind of actual proof.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> Paraphrasing Gil Grissom: Evidence is simply evidence. It is what it is. Nothing more and nothing less.


Exactly.  The evidence doesn't support evolution.  Fossils prove there are those particular fossils.  Everything we gleen (glean?) from them is merely interpretation of the evidence.  Again, those same fossils support ID!  We were created, with a design, thus we can see how that design _may have_ evolved.  

See what I mean?  The evidence does not really support anything but that there are fossils.





> And I think there is enough evidence to show us that evolution happened (and by extension, *is *happening), and that to say it's not a sound scientific axiom is just plain wrong.


That bipeds changed over the millenium?  Sure.  That bipeds came from sponges?  No, it doesn't show that at all.  That's a leap of faith.





> Now, I (and any scientist who respects Science itself) will admit that there *is* a chance that _someday, someone_ might uncover a piece of evidence that totally blows the entire theory of evolution out of the water, and in 1000 years, we'll look back at the "loony theory of evolution" and be amused, much the same way that today we look back at the naivete of people who thought earth was the center of the universe, and is flat to boot.


I can certainly agree with all of this. I don't know if it will be 1 year, 100 years, 1000 years, or never and I'll be proven wrong.  My point is, no one has been proven right at all yet.  I'm not denying evolution as a possibility, I'm merely poking the same holes in the theory based upon the same line of thinking as people poking holes in ID.  If we thought of evolution to the same standards (see Nuck's point on what makes up science earlier), evolution doesn't cut it any more than ID does.





> However, the likelihood of such a find is very small, and since it has not been found yet, it cannot be integrated into what we call Science.


Agreed.  And, since nothing whatsoever has come close to pointing to a sponge's offspring mutations leading to a human and a ficus, it should not be integrated into what we call science yet either.  People want to talk about how some moths may have changed color (without a known, just subjective to memory starting point) over time, go for it.  That didn't transition a moth into a bird.  People want to talk about humans standing more upright and living longer over time, go for it.  That doesn't mean a sponge mutated over several iterations into a human (oh, and a ficus).  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has ever pointed to anything like that.





> I don't think the concept of evolution was pulled from anyone's ass, and scientists all decided to manipulate the facts to fit the conclusion. It came from observation and discovery and research. I believe that the only way you can say it is _not conclusive_ is if you're demanding a record or fossil of every generation detailing the minute changes of each all the way back to the cradle of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would work.  Or, create a test wherein one cell of life transitions into land, amphibious, sea animals and plants through shere mutation and not manipulation.  Then we'll have evolution as described.  For abiogenesis, establish life on a lifeless planet without intervention.  For the non-intelligent creation of the universe, take nothing and make a universe out of it.  Sans that, it's pure conjecture for all the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a larger scale, we can work backwards with what we do have... and we have enough evidence to get from Z to Y to X to W, and we have the brains capable of arriving at the conclusion that the same thing happened for D, C, B & A as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for man to stand upright, live longer, change hair amounts on body, etc., I'll back that up as the most likely truth (though still not proven).  But, sponge to man?  Not a chance we can extrapolate that from what we've got.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course evidence fades the farther you reach back into the mists of time. So, OK, we don't have the fossilized evidence which links sponges to lemurs. But with the preponderance of evidence that does exist between wolves and dogs, and apes and humans, and mammoths and elephants and birds and dinosaurs, it's absurd to think that such links do not occur farther back in the timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're talking about two four-legged creatures (wolves and dogs).  Different maybe a little, but not different like a human and a pine tree, all from the same ancestry.  It may be true, but we don't have any reason now to think that it is other than conjecture.  As for birds and dinosaurs, that's another conjecture due to similar bone structures.  From my earlier post about giraffes, it was assumed that giraffes and horses had a similar ancestor because of the neck bone, but became more likely to be from the deer because of similar other body structures.  Maybe (and all I'm saying is maybe) similar bone structures aren't a good enough clue.  All I'm saying, again, is maybe.  The fact that maybe is a reasonable possibility proves we just don't have enough evidence to be so conclusive, and dismissive of other ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what? 150 millionish years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facetious, sorry.  I was making the point of untestability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I've proven God (at least to myself - and I have no desire to argue about it today), I believe you're correct.
> 
> But I know what you mean...
> 
> Since the links from algae to animal were probably all eaten or destroyed in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions of years ago, there will never be such evidence. However with the evidence that exists of links between more modern animals, it's pretty hard for me to believe that there are no links between the ancient critters as well.
> 
> Much like it's hard for me to believe that astronomical numbers behave differently than mundane numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, we have algae today.  And, we don't see the types of changes in it that would lead to believe it became, through mutations, anything but different forms of algae.  That's my point.  It may have happened, but we have nothing to base such a supposition on - no facts, no fossils, no empirical evidence, nothing but conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Toxick

This_person said:


> See what I mean?  The evidence does not really support anything but that there are fossils.



No, I don't. It appears that you're saying that the evidence does not indicate anything other than their own existence. I don't buy that. When you line up fossil after fossil, and you can actually see the progression then the evidence does in fact support evolution.

Does it 100% undeniably, unequivocably PROVE it? Maybe not. But it certainly makes it absurd to believe that it didn't happen.

To me, anyway.



This_person said:


> And, since nothing whatsoever has come close to pointing to a sponge's offspring mutations leading to a human



Just curious: Why have you fixated on sponges?




This_person said:


> and a ficus, it should not be integrated into what we call science yet either.



I disagree. In fact, since the study of this phenomenon an ongoing process (and will probably remain so until the end of time), it falls *firmly* within the realm of science. Gravity wasn't a part of science until Newton took a rap on the head. Relativity wasn't a part of science until the middle of last century. Science does not, and has never, claimed to be the end-all, be-all for every answer that will ever be asked. It is simply the accumulation of acquired human knowledge. Right now, evolution is simply the best answer we currently have based on the available data.

And if anyone ever comes up with a differing idea which is supported by the evidence, that will also fall within the realm of science. And then evolution and Theory X can duke it out on their own merits. As of right now, there is no reason (that I can see) to doubt that the process of evolution did not happen, and is not currently happening.

Intelligent design (much as I believe in it) does NOT fall within the realm of "science", because there is no scientific evidence which supports it. None, whatsoever. And since science is _pure empiricism_, by virtue of its method it *excludes* metaphysics and the supernatural. Period.



This_person said:


> That doesn't mean a sponge mutated over several iterations into a human (oh, and a ficus).



I think you may be misrepresenting what exactly evolution involves, yes?



This_person said:


> That would work.  Or, create a test wherein one cell of life transitions into land, amphibious, sea animals and plants through shere mutation and not manipulation.  Then we'll have evolution as described.  For abiogenesis, establish life on a lifeless planet without intervention.



Well, see, here is where you and I can agree and have harmony - because I don't believe that such mutations could exist without a guiding hand, and I don't believe in abiogenisis without a helping hand.

I simply believe that God used evolution as one of his many tools.



This_person said:


> The fact that maybe is a reasonable possibility proves we just don't have enough evidence to be so conclusive, and dismissive of other ideas.



I don't think that any evolutionist is being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive. However, when presented with an alternate idea, they (including moi) needs something more substantive than: Anteaters, sperm whales, human beings, bumblebees, cobras and kangaroos sprang fully formed from God's head.




This_person said:


> But, we have algae today.  And, we don't see the types of changes in it that would lead to believe it became, through mutations, anything but different forms of algae. That's my point.  It may have happened, but we have nothing to base such a supposition on - no facts, no fossils, no empirical evidence, nothing but conjecture.



No, not conjecture.

Extrapolition based on related data, perhaps. I'm sure that's not enough to satisify your need for PROOF, but you must give credit where it's due - extrapolation builds a more valid foundation than simple conjecture.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> Exactly.  The evidence doesn't support evolution.  Fossils prove there are those particular fossils.  Everything we gleen (glean?) from them is merely interpretation of the evidence.  Again, those same fossils support ID!  We were created, with a design, thus we can see how that design _may have_ evolved.



what i find funny is that you need to include evolution in your story to make it believeable to yourself (BTW thats another thing you are just sticking in the story for the sake of making it easier to believe)



			
				TP said:
			
		

> See what I mean?  The evidence does not really support anything but that there are fossils.



so DNA is only evidence that DNA exists, not of who it belongs to or who may have left it there? finger prints only evidence that finger prints exist, not that the person who owned them must have touched the surface they were foun on? Fossils of teeth only evidence that fossilized teeth exist, not the types of foods these teeth probably consumed and the type and age of the animal?


ev·i·dence   Audio Help   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing. 
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.  
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.  
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.  


i'd say that the fossils in question are more than jsut evidence that those fossil exist, and that those animal existed. As toxic said, one or two fossils might not be evidence of evolution, but the numerous fossils that we do have indicate even to you that man has changed during his existence, and that is definately NOT something covered in the bible.


----------



## foodcritic

tommyjones said:


> what i find funny is that you need to include evolution in your story to make it believeable to yourself (BTW thats another thing you are just sticking in the story for the sake of making it easier to believe)
> 
> 
> 
> so DNA is only evidence that DNA exists, not of who it belongs to or who may have left it there? finger prints only evidence that finger prints exist, not that the person who owned them must have touched the surface they were foun on? Fossils of teeth only evidence that fossilized teeth exist, not the types of foods these teeth probably consumed and the type and age of the animal?
> 
> 
> ev·i·dence   Audio Help   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
> –noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
> 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
> 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
> 
> 
> i'd say that the fossils in question are more than jsut evidence that those fossil exist, and that those animal existed. As toxic said, one or two fossils might not be evidence of evolution, but the numerous fossils that we do have indicate even to you that man has changed during his existence, and that is definately NOT something covered in the bible.



Numerous fossils don't prove anything.  All it proves is that there are animals or humans left their remains.  Many of these fossils are extremely small and are left to the discoveres uhuh imagination to piece together.

These only show transitions if that it the theory you already subscribe to.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> No, I don't. It appears that you're saying that the evidence does not indicate anything other than their own existence. I don't buy that. When you line up fossil after fossil, and you can actually see the progression then the evidence does in fact support evolution.
> 
> Does it 100% undeniably, unequivocably PROVE it? Maybe not. But it certainly makes it absurd to believe that it didn't happen.
> 
> To me, anyway.


I don't know about "absurd"  

However, you hit my point square on the head - it doesn't prove it.  And, the "absurd" concepts of the past are daily norms today.  Without proof, with fossils that may or may not go together being put together, etc., we're looking at selectively seeing the facts in a certain light.

And, we're still talking about one biped to another.  We've yet to touch on getting to the biped in the first place.  And, that's been where my bone of contention is.





> Just curious: Why have you fixated on sponges?


Until just very recently, the sponge was considered the first likely "complex" lifeform from which all else came (evolutionarily speaking)  Thus, since I can't remember what they're saying it is now, I stick to the sponge as the mother of all living things - plant, animal, insect, bird, etc....





> I disagree. In fact, since the study of this phenomenon an ongoing process (and will probably remain so until the end of time), it falls *firmly* within the realm of science. Gravity wasn't a part of science until Newton took a rap on the head. Relativity wasn't a part of science until the middle of last century. Science does not, and has never, claimed to be the end-all, be-all for every answer that will ever be asked. It is simply the accumulation of acquired human knowledge. Right now, evolution is simply the best answer we currently have based on the available data.


And, to say humans stand taller, live longer, etc....THAT evolution I will buy as likely.  Not proven, not the only possible answer, but likely.

Gravity wasn't a part of *science* until tests were performed to explain its constant.  Until then, it was just a thought.  Relativity is still just a thought, but every 10E-14th second of an operating nuclear reactor says it's a thought with evidence backing it up.  Sponge to rose bush + mosquito + human?  Just a thought with no evidence backing it up.





> And if anyone ever comes up with a differing idea which is supported by the evidence, that will also fall within the realm of science. And then evolution and Theory X can duke it out on their own merits. As of right now, there is no reason (that I can see) to doubt that the process of evolution did not happen, and is not currently happening.


If you limit the concept to a species changing within itself, I would agree.





> Intelligent design (much as I believe in it) does NOT fall within the realm of "science", because there is no scientific evidence which supports it. None, whatsoever. And since science is _pure empiricism_, by virtue of its method it *excludes* metaphysics and the supernatural. Period.


Why?  Proven, usable, used science in aerodynamics says a bumblebee simply cannot fly - yet we use that science daily to put 767s in the air.  "Supernatural" just means beyond which is explainable by natural laws.  That would be like saying quantum physics isn't explainable because the laws are different than macrophysics.  Science incorporated a whole new set of laws because they were there - why not supernatural concepts?  The Big Bang theory has natural law breaking down in the first (something like) 10E-40 second - does that mean it cannot be true?  No, it means there are laws beyond which we can comprehend.  We accept it there, we accept it within the subatomic particles, but we can't accept it as science if it's possible there's a hand guiding it?  That, with all due respect, is the absurd concept.





> I think you may be misrepresenting what exactly evolution involves, yes?


In what way?  I mean that seriously....  man and ape have a similar ancestor?  What about before that, and before that, and before that ad infinitum?  Eventually, we have to take it back to a single cell.  That created the dreaded sponge, the dreaded ficus, and you and me.





> Well, see, here is where you and I can agree and have harmony - because I don't believe that such mutations could exist without a guiding hand, and I don't believe in abiogenisis without a helping hand.
> 
> I simply believe that God used evolution as one of his many tools.


I'm glad we agree here, and I honestly think reading Tommy's rewording of my points may make my points a bit muddier than they really are.  I bet we agree on more than this if I could just communicate it well enough!  


> I don't think that any evolutionist is being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive. However, when presented with an alternate idea, they (including moi) needs something more substantive than: Anteaters, sperm whales, human beings, bumblebees, cobras and kangaroos sprang fully formed from God's head.


I don't think most dismiss for no other reason than a superiority complex, but I do think some do.  And, an open mind is an open mind,  period.  Switching from ID to Genesis - Genesis is wide open to interpretation when it comes to time frames and forms for how everything came from God's hand.  ID merely says that there is a designer - not necessarily that things sprang forth "fully formed" as it is today.  All I'm seeking is an open mind not for Genesis, but for ID - that there is a reasonable concept with equal proof and provability as abiogenesis and evolution.





> Extrapolition based on related data, perhaps. I'm sure that's not enough to satisify your need for PROOF, but you must give credit where it's due - extrapolation builds a more valid foundation than simple conjecture.


Did you read the "redneck logic" joke?Two redneck farmers, Jim and Bob, are sitting at their favorite bar, drinking beer.  Jim turns to Bob and says, 'You know, I'm tired of going through life without an education.  Tomorrow I think I'll go to the community college, and sign up for some classes.'  Bob thinks it's a good idea, and the two leave.

The next day, Jim goes down to the college and meets the Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, History, and Logic.

'Logic?' Jim says. 'What's that?'

The Dean says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?'

'Yeah.'

'Then logically speaking, because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a yard.'

'That's true, I do have a yard.'

'I'm not done,' the dean says. 'Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house.'

'Yes, I do have a house.'

And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family.'

'Yes, I have a family.' 

I'm not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife. And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual.'

'I am a heterosexual. That's amazing; you were able to find out all of that because I have a weed eater.'

Excited to take the class now, Jim shakes the Dean's hand and leaves to go meet Bob at the bar. He tells Bob about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic.

'Logic?' Bob says, 'What's that?'

Jim says, 'I'll give you an example. Do you have a weed eater?'

'No!

'Then you're a queer.​Extrapolation doesn't always work the way we think it does


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> what i find funny is that you need to include evolution in your story to make it believeable to yourself (BTW thats another thing you are just sticking in the story for the sake of making it easier to believe)


I hate to break the joke up for you, but I don't need to include evolution in "my story" to make it believable to myself.  I merely mention it's a possibility because A) it is, and B) it demonstrates my open mind on the subject.

For it to be "another thing I stick in the story", there would have to have been a previous thing.  There's not, so.....  (Tox, you're right, sometimes extrapolation DOES work just fine!  )





> so DNA is only evidence that DNA exists, not of who it belongs to or who may have left it there? finger prints only evidence that finger prints exist, not that the person who owned them must have touched the surface they were foun on?


Well, we can observe, test, repeat the DNA varies, and exists in a certain form only for a certain life; and that statistically speaking, finger prints don't appear for no apparent reason, and can be traced to a certain finger.  We've yet to demonstrate that the fossil of an ape lead to the fossil of a human.  They're sure similar, but we can't trace an actual chain, we just suspect that there's a chain (with a few broken links that we also have to assume in).  It would be more comparable to finding a piece of metal in Ohio, and another piece of metal in France, and constructing a tractor by trying to put those two pieces together - and then extrapolating a combine from two or three tractors we put together as I just described.





> Fossils of teeth only evidence that fossilized teeth exist, not the types of foods these teeth probably consumed and the type and age of the animal?


We may be able to guess, but we can't be certain by any means, no.





> ev·i·dence
> –noun
> 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
> 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
> 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
> 
> 
> i'd say that the fossils in question are more than jsut evidence that those fossil exist, and that those animal existed. As toxic said, one or two fossils might not be evidence of evolution, but the numerous fossils that we do have indicate even to you that man has changed during his existence, and that is definately NOT something covered in the bible.


You're right that it's not covered in the Bible - other than where it mentions God changing us throughout time (after the Tower of Babel, after the fall from the Garden, when he changed our longevity, etc., etc., etc.)  However, I'm still not trying to prove the Bible.  I'm trying to open your mind that evolution has flaws in concept, in proof, etc.


----------



## baydoll

> Science is all about empericism. That's all it is. Observance and recording of facts to obtain knowledge. It is cold. It's calculating. It is - by definition - brutally honest and does not allow room for error.



And I wholeheartedly agree. But you are missing my point. The creation/evolution debate isn't about religion vs. science or the Bible vs. science, it's about GOOD SCIENCE vs BAD SCIENCE. And likewise, it's not about faith vs. reason but REASONABLE faith vs. UNREASONABLE faith. 

For example, the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter from some sort of primordial soup when there is NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to support this. And that's just one of MANY. I can easily provide tons others. 

So you tell me.... Is that GOOD science or BAD science?

Is that REASONABLE faith or UNREASONABLE faith?

How BRUTALLY HONEST is that?


----------



## baydoll

> That science admits when there are holes or unknowns or variables does not negate or invalidate the known facts which do exist. It simply means that as of the current moment, some piece of information is not known.



What happens if those 'pieces' are never found? 

I could just as easily say that because those pieces haven't been found yet  doesn't mean they are there in the first place. It could mean simple that: 

THEY ARE NOT THERE PERIOD.

 Meaning their 'facts' are wrong.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> I hate to break the joke up for you, but I don't need to include evolution in "my story" to make it believable to myself.  I merely mention it's a possibility because A) it is, and B) it demonstrates my open mind on the subject.
> 
> For it to be "another thing I stick in the story", there would have to have been a previous thing.  There's not, so.....  (Tox, you're right, sometimes extrapolation DOES work just fine!  )Well, we can observe, test, repeat the DNA varies, and exists in a certain form only for a certain life; and that statistically speaking, finger prints don't appear for no apparent reason, and can be traced to a certain finger.  We've yet to demonstrate that the fossil of an ape lead to the fossil of a human.  They're sure similar, but we can't trace an actual chain, we just suspect that there's a chain (with a few broken links that we also have to assume in).  It would be more comparable to finding a piece of metal in Ohio, and another piece of metal in France, and constructing a tractor by trying to put those two pieces together - and then extrapolating a combine from two or three tractors we put together as I just described.We may be able to guess, but we can't be certain by any means, no.You're right that it's not covered in the Bible - other than where it mentions God changing us throughout time (after the Tower of Babel, after the fall from the Garden, when he changed our longevity, etc., etc., etc.)  However, I'm still not trying to prove the Bible.  I'm trying to open your mind that evolution has flaws in concept, in proof, etc.



i understnad that all of the evidence isn't in. but the facts of the matter support the theory that evolution has and is happening.
you and others continue to ignore that moany of the fossils do shoe intermediate forms of humans that were more ape like. just because we ahvn't found THE missing link, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.


you use the bible when it suits you, and when it is obviously countered by science you claim it is incomplete and you really do subscribe to its arguments.

at least baydoll sticks to one side.

as for your not defedning the


----------



## baydoll

> nPreview
> Quote:
> Personally, I think there is more than enough scientific evidence to support evolution. There are plenty of skeletons which "link" species from apes to humans (all of which are easily googled), and this evidence supports evolution.



Please provide one example and no I don't want to 'Google' it, thanks. Let's examine these 'links' in further detail. 





> Now, have archeologists unearthed the skeletons of every single generation recording every single mutation or change for every family tree going all the way back to the first mitochondrion? No. But to say the entire "theory of evolution" is a house of cards because we lack this information, while ignoring the preponderance of supporting evidence is ludicrous.
> 
> Now, if you simply want to say, "The devil put the fossils there" then, by all means, do so, but Science, the scientific method, and scientific evidence ALL points to one conclusion, and one conclusion only.
> 
> That's what science is



And does science support Evolution? Does Evolution support science? 

Does the fossil record even support Evolution? 

Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Perhaps the devil placed all those fossils in the Cambrian explosion...

Charles Darwin wrote, 




> "Why then is not every geogical formation and every stratum full of such intermiate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."





Darwin thought further fossil discoveries would reveal his theory to be true...but is this the case? If Darwinism is true, wouldn't thousands if not MILLIONS of transitional fossils have been found by now? That's not the case.  Instead we've since discovered the Cambrian explosion which pretty much uprooted Darwin's pretty little Tree. 

According to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist, btw):



> The history of most fossil species included two features particularly inconsistent with gradulism:
> 
> 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappeared; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
> 
> 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. (from 'Evolution's Erratic Pace', Natural History  1977 vol. 86)




So it seems to me he is admitting that fossil types that have been found:

1. Appear suddenly,

2. Fully formed, 

3. and remained the same until either extinction without any directional cause.

EXACTLY what creationists believe.


----------



## tommyjones

This_person said:


> I hate to break the joke up for you, but I don't need to include evolution in "my story" to make it believable to myself.  I merely mention it's a possibility because A) it is, and B) it demonstrates my open mind on the subject.
> 
> For it to be "another thing I stick in the story", there would have to have been a previous thing.  *There's not, so.....*  (Tox, you're right, sometimes extrapolation DOES work just fine!  )



come on, you complete made up an entire race of people for cain to marry into just so he didn't have to bang his sister- because that doesn't sit well with you.

now you are trying to say that adam and eve were cave men that we evolved from, or that god created numerous other subspeices of man- neither of which are in the bible.

what ever you need to tell yourself to keep believing


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Perhaps the devil placed all those fossils in the Cambrian explosion...
> .



my GF's priest and i were talking aout this the other day. we both had a big laugh about the fact there are people who actually believe that the devil put fossils in the gound jsut to discredit the bible and to make people question its integrity. The priest and i agree that fossils (we were talking aout dinosaurs) dont necessarily discredit the bible, but believing the DEBIL did it is just.... well.... you got to be pretty gulible


----------



## baydoll

> i understnad that all of the evidence isn't in. but the facts of the matter support the theory that evolution has and is happening.
> you and others continue to ignore that moany of the fossils do shoe intermediate forms of humans that were more ape like.
> 
> 
> you use the bible when it suits you, and when it is obviously countered by science you claim it is incomplete and you really do subscribe to its arguments.
> 
> at least baydoll sticks to one side.
> 
> as for your not defedning the



Um okay....so please show us these 'matters' that support the theory of evolution. And also, post ONE example from these 'many of the fossils that show intermediate forms of human that were more ape like' thanks. 




> just because we ahvn't found THE missing link, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.




Oh so you wouldn't happen to be using FAITH now would you? 

So what happens if that missing link is never found?


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> my GF's priest and i were talking aout this the other day. we both had a big laugh about the fact there are people who actually believe that the devil put fossils in the gound jsut to discredit the bible and to make people question its integrity. The priest and i agree that fossils (we were talking aout dinosaurs) dont necessarily discredit the bible, but believing the DEBIL did it is just.... well.... you got to be pretty gulible



So what DO you think of the Cambrian explosion? Does it prove Darwin's theory or not?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> So what DO you think of the Cambrian explosion? Does it prove Darwin's theory or not?



i dont think it does either. I think that it is most likely a natural phenomonon. Kind of like the way any population has a natural curve where it explodes at a certain point, but after which there is too much competition  and things level off. exponential growth is something relatively common in populations.

and it is far more logical than your "the devil did it so i would question god" theory.


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Baydoll,
> We know you've ignored the "Inacuracies in the Bible" post, we've accepted you will not attempt to address them.  Can you at least let us know your thoughts on the Age of the World?
> 
> You've skated it twice now but to make it easier i've created a Graph, can you let us know where you fall?
> 
> 6000 years <-------------Couple Million years------------->Gajillion years​................[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]​



I am sorry Mr. Nucklesack but as I said before (and will say it again) I don't KNOW the age of this world. I can hardly guess and don't want to even try. 

As for those questions I've not yet answered I have already explained to you no I am not ignoring those posts of yours. I do not live at this forum like some of you appear to do. I lead an extremely busy life outside of this board and the last few weeks have been really busy beyond normal. I am trying my hardest to answer all your questions but in the meantime you will have to be patient with me as I can only do so much.

Thanks, gorgeous!


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> i dont think it does either. I think that it is most likely a natural phenomonon. Kind of like the way any population has a natural curve where it explodes at a certain point, but after which there is too much competition  and things level off. exponential growth is something relatively common in populations.
> 
> and it is far more logical than your "the devil did it so i would question god" theory.




No I don't think the devil did it at all. I think whatever died there did it. 

Tommy, how would you explain Darwin's Tree of Life?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> For example, the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter from some sort of primordial soup when there is NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to support this. And that's just one of MANY. I can easily provide tons others.
> 
> So you tell me.... Is that GOOD science or BAD science?




I think they have a better explanation than "life arose spontaneously from primordial ooze". And since the explanations that they do have are qualified as "theories", and those theories are founded on existing scientific principal, I'd say it's not bad science.

I don't think one scientist accepts any of the current scientific explanations of the origin of life as *THE VNDISPVTED TRVTH*. If a scientist ever comes up and says "This is what happened. The subject is closed" without providing empirical data, then I would agree that it is, of course, bad science. That hasn't happened yet. At least not from any credible group of scientists.

There is no leap of faith required. There are simply ideas about possibilities, and we have resigned ourselves to the fact that no one will ever know. 

God is conspicuously left out as a scientific explanation because currently there is no scientific proof of His existence in the first place. And like I said yesterday, you work with what you got.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> No I don't think the devil did it at all. *I think whatever died there did it*.
> 
> Tommy, how would you explain Darwin's Tree of Life?



what the hell are you talking about? You just said the devil did it a few post back


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> What happens if those 'pieces' are never found?
> 
> I could just as easily say that because those pieces haven't been found yet  doesn't mean they are there in the first place.



Yes, you could very easily say that.

However, if you do say that, you have partaken in a logical fallacy known as non-causa pro-causa.




baydoll said:


> Meaning their 'facts' are wrong.




Facts are simply facts. And facts, by definition are not wrong.


I will tell you like I told T_P yesterday, it is possible that the interpretation of those facts are incorrect, because it's *possible* that one of those "holes" could contain something which disproves the whole thing. However, it is extremely BAD science to dismiss the entire thing because such a possibility exists.

Based on existing data, the interpretation of fossil records to conclude evolution is not unreasonable. Discounting the interpretation because it doesn't fit a preconceived conclusion, however, *is* unreasonable.

It is, in fact, the definition of unreasonable.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> Please provide one example and no I don't want to 'Google' it, thanks. Let's examine these 'links' in further detail.




I'll throw out the term "Lucy" as an example. That's one example I'll provide.

If you don't want to google it, I certainly don't want to do your research for you. And if you don't feel like putting any effort into the discussion, then I really don't either.

Maybe some other time.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> what the hell are you talking about? You just said the devil did it a few post back



No I didn't.


----------



## baydoll

> I think they have a better explanation than "life arose spontaneously from primordial ooze". And since the explanations that they do have are qualified as "theories", and those theories are founded on existing scientific principal, I'd say it's not bad science.



So life arose out of what then?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> So life arose out of what then?




Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several hypothoses.


----------



## baydoll

> God is conspicuously left out as a scientific explanation because currently there is no scientific proof of His existence in the first place. .



God is conspicously left out as a scientific explanation because darwinists have redefined science in such a way that the only possible answer is DARWINISM. God forbid any other explanation be given than theirs. 




> And like I said yesterday, you work with what you got



like believing that life spontaneously arose out of nothing? Where is the current  scientific proof for that?


----------



## baydoll

Toxick said:


> Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Several hypothoses.




So please show us one example of this actually taking place.


----------



## baydoll

What happens if those 'pieces' are never found? 

I could just as easily say that because those pieces haven't been found yet doesn't mean they are there in the first place. 

Yes, you could very easily say that.



> However, if you do say that, you have partaken in a logical fallacy known as non-causa pro-causa.



So then we are both using faith, are we not? 


Again, the Cambrian explosion pretty much puts the lid on that 'logic'.


----------



## baydoll

> Based on existing data, the interpretation of fossil records to conclude evolution is not unreasonable. Discounting the interpretation because it doesn't fit a preconceived conclusion, however, is unreasonable.



And this existing data is?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> So please show us one example of this actually taking place.




I've already explicitly said that can't be done.

I've also already explicitly said these are _hypothoses_, and it says so on the page with the link itself.



Are you just wanting to see the words "Human Science cannot currently demonstrate abiogenisis?" 

Ok - there you go. I said it. (Although, I highly doubt this inability to demonstrate abiogenesis in a lab will convince anyone with a scientific mind, that a 7 Day Creation Event took place, unfortunately).



Now, is there anything else that's been repeatedly said, both implicitly and explicitly that you would care for me to reiterate one more time?


My point is was - and remains - there is no "leap of faith". There is no bad science involved, because *there is no scientific concensus to the origin of life*.

Just theories, and (this is key) they are treated as such.




Interjecting Intelligent Design into the set of theories is, however, Bad Science becuse there is no impirical data which could possiblly be contrived to point to such a conclusion, in any fashion, whatsoever - outside of a very non-detailed and sporadic biblical account of creation, written millions of years (or a few hundred, if you prefer) after it happened by someone who wasn't there.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> So then we are both using faith, are we not?



We are not.


At least, not in the purposes of this discussion. Don't forget, I am a Christian, and I do believe in Intelligent Design. I just don't think it has any place in a Science class.




baydoll said:


> Again, the Cambrian explosion pretty much puts the lid on that 'logic'.



To you, perhaps. I still fail to see how the cambrian explosion scientifically disproves evolution. But then, I'm not a geneticist, biologist or geologist.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> And this existing data is?



Skeletons?

Fossils?


....


Didn't I just say that in the very post you're responding to?


----------



## Xaquin44

the problem you're facing, Toxick, is that she doesn't care that science is not the same as faith.

you'll never change her opinion or get her to understand, because she doesn't want/care to learn (or realize) the difference.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Please provide one example and no I don't want to 'Google' it, thanks. Let's examine these 'links' in further detail. 




> 'll throw out the term "Lucy" as an example. That's one example I'll provide.
> 
> If you don't want to google it, I certainly don't want to do your research for you. And if you don't feel like putting any effort into the discussion, then I really don't either.
> 
> Maybe some other time.



Oh LUCY God bless her little monkey heart, LOL! I am so glad you decide to throw her out and an excellent example she is too!

Let's take a look at Australopithecus afarensis, or Lucy shall we? 

In 1967, National Geographic magazine did a feature on what they thought was a major find in Ethiopia. It was a collection of bone fragments (40%) from a three and a half foot tall chimpanzee skeleton found in 1974 by   Donald Johanson, an American. From about 1979 it gained the favor of many evolutionists as the key ape-like ancestor of modern man EVEN THOUGHT IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE A CHIMPANZEE, but one that is claimed to have walked upright.

I could be wrong but DON'T WE HAVE UPRIGHT WALKING CHIMPS AROUND TODAY?


This proves nothing more than they found a fossil of a chimpanzee who walked upright just like the ones we have today. Excellent specimen of the missing link! 

Got any more?


----------



## baydoll

> Skeletons?
> 
> Fossils?



Care to be a little more specific, please?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> Got any more?






baydoll said:


> Care to be a little more specific, please?



No, on both counts. Not if you're going to dismiss everything that I say out of hand. I don't usually continue debate with someone who is deliberately obtuse.


----------



## baydoll

> At least, not in the purposes of this discussion. Don't forget, I am a Christian, and I do believe in Intelligent Design. I just don't think it has any place in a Science class.



Okay.....ever hear of the Anthropic Principle?


----------



## baydoll

> No, on both counts. Not if you're going to dismiss everything that I say out of hand. I don't usually continue debate with someone who is deliberately obtuse.



Do YOU think Lucy is the missing link then?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:
			
		

> Okay.....ever hear of the Anthropic Principle?



Yes.




baydoll said:


> Do YOU think Lucy is the missing link then?




Being that she is not missing, no.

I think she's simply another link in the chain.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
Again, the Cambrian explosion pretty much puts the lid on that 'logic'. 



> To you, perhaps. I still fail to see how the cambrian explosion scientifically disproves evolution. But then, I'm not a geneticist, biologist or geologist.





In the Cambrian explosion, all animal groups appear separately, fully formed and at the same time. Is that evidence of gradual evolution or instantaneous creation?


----------



## baydoll

> Being that she is not missing, no.
> 
> I think she's simply another link in the chain.



The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.



just beacuse you hafd a rapid increase in the rate of evolution during that period does not negate that evolution happened.

The obvious reasons for the cambrian explosion are that O2 levels increased or some other environmental factor changed significantly. a change like that in any population could have an immediate effect, and the rate of change would eventually plattue.

where do you get the idea that all these species suddnely appeared fully formed? there is absolutly no evidence of that


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.



BTW, the cambrian explosion occured a long time before lucy would have emerged, so its existence wouldn't affect ANYTHING we know about her.

and care to show me all the chimpazees that walk upright?


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll 
Okay.....ever hear of the Anthropic Principle? 


> Yes.



Amazing, is it not? 

Too bad most scientists are not honest enough to admit that this incredibly and beautifully fine-tuned universe shows amazing design and complexity far beyond anything we could ever hope to imagine....and that this incredible Creation requires an AMAZING Creator. There is no plausible explanation for the Anthropic Principle other than a Cosmic Designer. And yet INCREDIBLY,  most 'scientists' will go through extreme measures to explain it all away.  

So do you STILL say that the Intelligent Design argument doesn't belong in a Science Class?


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> In the Cambrian explosion, all animal groups appear separately, fully formed and at the same time. Is that evidence of gradual evolution or instantaneous creation?





It is evidence of an accelerated diversification. Perhaps the end of an ice age, or global warming period? Perhaps some threshhold of cellular complexity was finally passed which allowed for more genetic diversity to be expanded upon? (These are just a couple of *theories* off the top of my head BTW, I'm citing any of them as fact or gospel). 

However, given that there are PRE-Cambrian fossils, I would submit to you that this cambrian explosion can not be cited as the "creation event". The only thing it is evidence of is acceleration of diversification. If you want to attribute that to God I won't disagree with you.


And I didn't really want to be drawn into a discussion about Creation vs. Evolution. As I said, I'm not a biologist, geologist or any *ologist, or even a hobbyist in any of these fields. I have a (better than average, IMO) layman's working knowledge, but no expertise where I can debate you on a fact by fact basis. Not to mention that _I believe in Intelligent Design_.... All I wanted to point out is that Science is not about faith and does not rely on faith the way you assert that it does.


That all these things are called "theories" and "hypothoses" and are treated as such *proves* my point. Not one element of today's science relies on any of the aforementioned theories (not even biology or applied genetics). And nothing about today's science books will be affected if any of these theories were debunked tomorrow. IOW: None of it is faith-based, and none of it is bad science.

This is point that you refuse to acknowledge.



It's your right to do so, but I'm certainly not inclined to rehash it again.


----------



## Toxick

baydoll said:


> Amazing, is it not?



It is.



baydoll said:


> So do you STILL say that the Intelligent Design argument doesn't belong in a Science Class?





Yes I do.

Given that there is no physical evidence of a Supreme Creator, then yes I do.


For the same reason that mathematical principals shouldn't be taught in a Spanish class, and Sex Education shouldn't be taught during History.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> BTW, the cambrian explosion occured a long time before lucy would have emerged, so its existence wouldn't affect ANYTHING we know about her.



So? What's that have to do with anything? 



> and care to show me all the chimpazees that walk upright?





> DESCRIPTION:
> Chimpanzee faces are pinkish to black, and the apes' bodies are covered with long black hair. Chimps lack a tail. Their opposable thumbs and toes help them grasp objects easily. Chimpanzees are quadrupedal, which means that they walk on all four limbs, although they can also walk upright (bipedal) for short distances.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> So? What's that have to do with anything?



you do notice that your source indicates that chimpazees are quadrapedal, and can only walk upright for short distances. that is a far cry from what scientists believe lucy did.




			
				baydoll said:
			
		

> So? What's that have to do with anything?



it just shows that you dont understand the concept of time. millions of years separated these events. how would a cambrian explosion have meaning in the validity of the lucy fossils?


----------



## baydoll

> you do notice that your source indicates that chimpazees are quadrapedal, and can only walk upright for short distances. that is a far cry from what scientists believe lucy did.



That she was more than likely a knuckle walker?




> Lucy In The Sky
> Case For The Tree-Dweller
> By Jordan P. Niednagel
> ©TrueAuthority.com - 12/03
> 
> She is an espoused ancestral link to humans, but recent headlines are shedding light on the controversial lady we've all come to know as Lucy. One reads, "Early Man Walked On All Fours," while another says, "Did Lucy Walk On Her Knuckles?" So, we ask ourselves, what's the huff and puff all about? Simply put, it all has to do with scientific discoveries, discoveries revealing that the fossil ‘Lucy’ (Australopithecus afarensis) has the same wrist anatomy as knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas. For the layman reader, you may be asking yourself what the significance is. Lucy, you see, has been pushed by mainstream science as an upright, human-like animal, with feet and hands also like that of a human. Don't believe it? Let's take a little trip to St. Louis Zoo in Missouri, USA.
> 
> It's a $17.9 million exhibit featuring evolution, and within the attraction stands an impressive statue of a purported reconstruction of the subject of this article . . . Lucy. She's upright, shows an intelligent expression on her face, and, without having to look closely, has feet and hands near identical to that of a human (though a bit harrier). One, of course, would assume that the reconstruction is based on fossil evidence. This, however, is not the case. Rather, the statue's feet and hands are plain wrong and misleading to the public. Associate professor of anatomy and neurobiology at the nearby Washington University, Dr. David Menton (interviewed in Creation magazine, Vol.16 No.4, pp. 16-19) confirms that they're not based on the fossil facts, as do others.
> 
> But why? Why display with vivid detail features of an animal that aren't accurate? Bruce Carr, the zoo's director of education, shares the answer.
> 
> "We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct."
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> Dr. Menton also says that if Lucy's feet were shown accurately, they clearly could never fit into the well-known Laetoli fossil footprints. These are 'exhibit A' for evolutionary belief in upright walking by Lucy's kind, whereas in truth they are identical to bare-foot humans. In any case, Menton did, at least, state back in 1989 that "I think the zoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) an honest presentation."
> 
> Let us return, now, to the initial subject of this article.
> 
> Lucy, it's been confirmed, has the same wrist anatomy as chimpanzees and gorillas. Furthermore, using multivariate analysis, the anatomist Dr. Charles Oxnard has shown that Lucy's big toe actually sticks out as in chimpanzees. This, it must be noted, is a very important point, because evolutionists point to the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli (which look just like human footprints but are claimed to pre-date humans) as concrete evidence that Lucy walked upright. When correctly reconstructed, however, australopithecine fossil foot bones show that Lucy could not possibly have made those footprints. Rather, they are just like those of children who habitually walk barefoot, as Dr. Russell Tuttle’s of the University of Chicago believes.
> 
> Still, many evolutionists refuse to concede anything other than upright walking for Lucy. According to them, her knuckle-walking wrist joints are a leftover (or vestige) from an early ancestor who came down from the trees and walked on her knuckles, just like chimpanzees and gorillas.
> 
> Everyone, of course, is entitled to their beliefs, but once belief supercedes evidence, a dangerous ground is encroached.
> 
> Fortunately, there is more evidence other than the wrists and feet of Lucy to build a case that she was, in essence, "chimp-like." Anatomist Dr. Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, performed CAT scans on australopithecine inner ear canals (reflecting posture and balance) and came to the conclusion that they did not walk habitually upright.
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> So, in the final analysis, what was Lucy? Dr. Charles Oxnard, after conducting his multivariate analysis, stated that the australopithecine fossils "clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique." Whether or not he's right, one thing is certain: Lucy was in all likelihood a knuckle-crawling tree-dweller . . . yes, not an upright walker on the ground, but instead a stooped branch-swinger in the sky.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> That she was more than likely a knuckle walker?



they looked at leg bones and such to determine if these hominoids walked upright.

where is the discussion of the fossil evidence? the article you quoted only says that some guy says the zoo's representation isn't correct. he doesn't ever say he actually studied the fossils or even replicas of the fossils.


----------



## Xaquin44

tommyjones said:


> they looked at leg bones and such to determine if these hominoids walked upright.



DUH tommy

we don't even _have_ leg bones

we can't _see_ them lolz


----------



## tommyjones

Xaquin44 said:


> DUH tommy
> 
> we don't even _have_ leg bones
> 
> we can't _see_ them lolz



how can we have leg bones? we dont even have bones......


----------



## baydoll

> it just shows that you dont understand the concept of time. millions of years separated these events. how would a cambrian explosion have meaning in the validity of the lucy fossils?



So what does time have to do with validity of lucy's fossils? It still shows lucy to be a chimpanzee whether she was around during the Cambrian period or many years after.


----------



## foodcritic

tommyjones said:


> how can we have leg bones? we dont even have bones......





> According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, *Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’*.1 Leakey even said in *1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to*.




I thought all scientists agreed on everything.....after all it's science!!!!


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> So what does time have to do with validity of lucy's fossils? It still shows lucy to be a chimpanzee whether she was around during the Cambrian period or many years after.



the time issue.

cambrian explosion many millions of years before lucy. you said it refuted the legitimacy of the fossils. I say how?

you see, if the two happened millions of years apart, other than one possibly being a precurser to the other, they have no connection.

you have yet to show that lucy is the skeleton of a chimpanzee. you only have quote someone who HAS NOT STUDIED THE FOSSILS.


find something from a scientist who has actually studied the LUCY fossils.


----------



## tommyjones

foodcritic said:


> I thought all scientists agreed on everything.....after all it's science!!!!



you obviously dont understand science

ever hear of a little thing called global warming?


----------



## baydoll

> they looked at leg bones and such to determine if these hominoids walked upright.



Actually that's a lot better than what your scientists have been known to do. Ever heard of Java Man? 




> where is the discussion of the fossil evidence? the article you quoted only says that some guy says the zoo's representation isn't correct. he doesn't ever say he actually studied the fossils or even replicas of the fossils



That 'some guy' is actually Dr. David Menton, an Associate Professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Washington University.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Actually that's a lot better than what your scientists have been known to do. Ever heard of Java Man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 'some guy' is actually Dr. David Menton, an Associate Professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Washington University.



did that guy ever look at the bones or is he jsut pulling this all out of his nonexistent bung?


----------



## Xaquin44

Why is someone who doesn't even believe we have bones arguing about fossils?


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Actually that's a lot better than what your scientists have been known to do. Ever heard of Java Man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 'some guy' is actually Dr. David Menton, an Associate Professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Washington University.



as to java man, they had several bones and two sets that seem to be from the same species.

so are you saying java man was a man or an ape? how did you come to this conclusion?


----------



## baydoll

> the time issue.
> 
> cambrian explosion many millions of years before lucy. you said it refuted the legitimacy of the fossils. I say how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> find something from a scientist who has actually studied the LUCY fossils.



Um no. I said it refuted the legitimacy of Darwin's theory, sweetie. 



> you see, if the two happened millions of years apart, other than one possibly being a precurser to the other, they have no connection.



They have no connection to what? 




> you have yet to show that lucy is the skeleton of a chimpanzee. you only have quote someone who HAS NOT STUDIED THE FOSSILS.






> According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.




Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):



> “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”


----------



## baydoll

> as to java man, they had several bones and two sets that seem to be from the same species.
> 
> so are you saying java man was a man or an ape? how did you come to this conclusion?



What would you say? Is it a man or an ape?


----------



## tommyjones

toxic said:
			
		

> Being that she is not missing, no.
> 
> I think she's simply another link in the chain.






baydoll said:


> The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.





			
				BD said:
			
		

> Um no. I said it refuted the legitimacy of Darwin's theory, sweetie.



you can't even keep yourself straight.....




and the lucy and cambrian explosion have no connection to each other.


----------



## baydoll

> The flaw in your theory is there is evidence of life existing prior to the Cambrian "Explosion". The "explosion" was not the appearance of all life, just an increase
> 
> Stromatolites, stubby pillars built by colonies of microorganisms
> 
> Fossils known as acritarchs, almost any small organic walled fossil – from the egg cases of small metazoans to resting cysts of many different kinds of green algae
> 
> Doushantuo formation contains 580 million year old microscopic fossils
> 
> The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion, not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary diversification may also not have been as rapid. Statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other diversifications in animals' history



It doesn't 'dampen' it in the least. Here's what the record shows: Prior to the Cambrian period were the jellyfish, sponges and worms FULLY FORMED.  

Then quite suddenly BOOM! we see representatives of arthropods, modern representations of insects, crabs and the like; modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates which include modern vertebrates and so forth ALL groups appear separately, fully formed, AND at the SAME TIME. 

This is totally contrary to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution.


----------



## baydoll

I'm headed out the door but tomorrow I am going to go back through this thread and answer Knuck's post that he wanted me to answer. 

In the meantime, have a nice evening people!


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> It doesn't 'dampen' it in the least. Here's what the record shows: Prior to the Cambrian period were the jellyfish, sponges and worms FULLY FORMED.
> 
> Then quite suddenly BOOM! we see representatives of arthropods, modern representations of insects, crabs and the like; modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates which include modern vertebrates and so forth ALL groups appear separately, fully formed, AND at the SAME TIME.
> 
> This is totally contrary to Darwin's theory theory of gradual evolution.



and also counter to what is described in genesis


----------



## baydoll

No it doesn't...
'Sea creatures came first, then birds, then beast of the earth THEN man. 





> 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
> 
> 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
> 
> 23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
> 
> 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
> 
> 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
> 
> 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


----------



## baydoll

And that's it for the day, folks. 

Bye!


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> No it doesn't...
> 'Sea creatures came first, then birds, then beast of the earth THEN man.



birds come as a result of the cambrian explosion in the fossil record, not before. so it does indeed counter what genesis says


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> i understnad that all of the evidence isn't in. but the facts of the matter support the theory that evolution has and is happening.
> you and others continue to ignore that moany of the fossils do shoe intermediate forms of humans that were more ape like. just because we ahvn't found THE missing link, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.


Once again, you're sticking to humans evolving from humans (or, at least biped animals of some sort).  I do not now, nor have I ever, denied that possibility - even potential likelihood of such a thing.  My problem continues to be the sponge to human and ficus problem with evolution.  It hasn't changed, and acting like I've said something different doesn't mean I have.  I'll buy moths more than likely changed color.  I'll buy humans live longer, have less hair on their body, and stand taller.  I'll even consider buying into sponges to both humans and palm trees if there were a shred of even circumstantial evidence to support it - but there's not.





> you use the bible when it suits you, and when it is obviously countered by science you claim it is incomplete and you really do subscribe to its arguments.


I use the Bible to answer people's false claims about it.  I do not use the Bible as proof of anything except what the Bible says.  And, I generally denote that I am stating what the Bible says, not what ID says, and then reiterate that ID is not Christian in concept, just in arguments from those against.





> at least baydoll sticks to one side.
> 
> as for your not defedning the


????


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> come on, you complete made up an entire race of people for cain to marry into just so he didn't have to bang his sister- because that doesn't sit well with you.


And, you're making up a sister!  

I made no one up.  I read what is written, and suggested *possible* solution*s* to the source of the missing people (including a sister, since Genesis doesn't mention one of those, either - so suggesting a sister is as "made up" as other people created)





> now you are trying to say that adam and eve were cave men that we evolved from, or that god created numerous other subspeices of man- neither of which are in the bible.


I'm not saying that's what Adam and Eve were, I'm suggesting it's a possibility.  That it is not in the Bible is meaningless to it's possibility.  I am not in the Bible either, but I exist.  The Bible is still not a complete book of everything - it still just tells the stories it needs to tell to give you and I the information we need to have.  Everything beyond isn't non-existant, it's just not necessary for us to know.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't know it if we want, and shouldn't seek it out if we choose - just that we don't need to know it to get the meaning of God.  I don't know why this is so hard for you to hold on to, I think I've said this several hundred times.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Actually its another Theory.
> 
> What is funny is you support the theory of Abiogenesis of Oil, which is the theory your talking about above, while discounting the theory of Abiogenesis of life.


I still don't, and never have, discounted abiogenesis as a potential for the source of life on Earth.  I look at it skeptically/critically, as I do Creation.  I find the likelihood of abiogenesis to be exceptionally remote, as I do Creation.  The statistics just aren't there to presume either is a reasonable, probable answer.  And, there is not a lick of evidence to support either claim - which is the basis of my whole argument.  I certainly don't dismiss it, but I don't put my faith in the idea that someday it will be provable.

Now, if oil starts to reproduce, and it's offspring sprouts wings, others spring forth gills, grow roots into the ocean floor and mountain plateaus, swims, walks, slithers, and tumbles, I'll buy into a similar abiogenesis of oil as with humans.  I don't forsee the likelihood of that, and I doubt you do either.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> That all these things are called "theories" and "hypothoses" and are treated as such *proves* my point. Not one element of today's science relies on any of the aforementioned theories (not even biology or applied genetics). And nothing about today's science books will be affected if any of these theories were debunked tomorrow. IOW: None of it is faith-based, and none of it is bad science.
> 
> This is point that you refuse to acknowledge.


As for me, I see treating one theory that can't be proven or even tested as science, and another theory that can be proven or even tested as religion as a bias against open thought.

As for me, my goal is *not* to say evolution is wrong, abiogenesis is wrong, and creation is the only right answer.  My goal is to get people to agree that abiogenesis can't be proven, evolution from sponge to human and mosquito can't be proven, and creation can't be proven.  And, treating them differently is therefore intellectually dishonest due to a predisposition against one set of thoughts.  As I stated before, we needed to come up with a new set of "natural" laws to get sub-atomic observances to work.  We have no set of "natural" laws for the first gajillionth of a second of the Big Bang - science already accepts "super"natural concepts provided they don't bring an intelligence with them.  To me, that's closed minded.


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> and also counter to what is described in genesis


A)  No it doesn't, it goes directly with Genesis 1.

B)  ID doesn't teach genesis.  It teaches much the same as evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc., etc., but puts an intelligence designing how it all flows vice random occurances with no meaning.  VBS teaches Genesis, ID teaches science with a different theory.  Science doesn't even have a theory for the origin of the universe pre-Big Bang, nor does ID, nor does Genesis.  Kinda makes 'em all pretty equal


----------



## This_person

tommyjones said:


> birds come as a result of the cambrian explosion in the fossil record, not before. so it does indeed counter what genesis says


We've done good exploration of ocean beds for fossil remains?  

How come all the missing fossils will be found if they support evolution, but they're just plain missing if they support anything else?


----------



## Toxick

This_person said:


> As for me, I see treating one theory that can't be proven or even tested as science, and another theory that can be proven or even tested as religion as a bias against open thought.



One is based on observed data.

One isn't.




This_person said:


> As for me, my goal is *not* to say evolution is wrong, abiogenesis is wrong, and creation is the only right answer.  My goal is to get people to agree that abiogenesis can't be proven, evolution from sponge to human and mosquito can't be proven, and creation can't be proven.



I don't think that anyone disputes this.

The only reason I entered this thread at all was that abiogenesis was referred to as "bad science", and that it is based on faith alone. Nothing I've read since joining the discussion has led me away from believing that these two accusations are false.


----------



## Toxick

This_person said:


> Kinda makes 'em all pretty equal



With one glaring exception.



ID makes a *huge* baseless assumption. It assumes an intelligence, where there is no scientific data providing evidence of its existence.

Big bang and evolution theories do not assume anything. They take accumulated observable data and infers a theory based on those alone.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> One is based on observed data.
> 
> One isn't.


They're both based on the same observations.  They both have the same testability.  They are different explainations of the same observations





> I don't think that anyone disputes this.
> 
> The only reason I entered this thread at all was that abiogenesis was referred to as "bad science", and that it is based on faith alone. Nothing I've read since joining the discussion has led me away from believing that these two accusations are false.


ID has been deemed faith because there is no way to test it.  "Not science", because it can't be tested, repeated, etc.  I see no difference between that accurate criticism of ID, and that accurate criticism of abiogenesis.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> With one glaring exception.
> 
> ID makes a *huge* baseless assumption. It assumes an intelligence, where there is no scientific data providing evidence of its existence.


I agree it's a baseless assumption.  Where is the observable, repeatable, testable data for the assumption of life formation from ANY source, let alone an intelligent designer?  This is where I do NOT see a difference.  It's not that I think ID has better data, it's that I don't see the data for abiogenesis any more than I see the data for a single cell becoming so many different forms of life.

You told me before that I was misrepresenting evolution by saying that, but when I asked how that was a misrepresentation (of you then, of Xaquin, NS, Tommy, and many others over many threads with a similar comment), no one has been able to demonstrate how that's a misrepresentation.





> Big bang and evolution theories do not assume anything. They take accumulated observable data and infers a theory based on those alone.


I agree.  But, what I'm saying about the Big Bang is that the first bit of time of that "bang", the natural laws do not exist.  If we can reasonably follow a scientific theory that has "super" natural laws in this, why can't we follow what would therefore be an equally scientific theory with "super" natural laws?


----------



## baydoll

Dear Everyone, 

In response to Mr. Nuckle's recent request that I answer his past posts, I am going to have to lay aside any recents posts I have yet to answer. For the time being, anyway. I know, I know, you all just ADORE me and will be saddened to hear of this. BUT I must be brave and take on this new assignment in which I will bravely attempt to go where no man has gone before. YES, taking that daringest of all journeys, back into the dark primordial recesses of this thread in search of those allusive and wiliest of posts, The Great Unanswered Nuckle's Posts.

 Wish me luck! 


Sincerely, 

Bay-Doll.


----------



## tommyjones

tommyjones said:


> birds come as a result of the cambrian explosion in the fossil record, not before. so it does indeed counter what genesis says



can you show me a pre-cambrian bird while you are at it?


----------



## Toxick

This_person said:


> It's not that I think ID has better data, it's that I don't see the data for abiogenesis any more than I see the data for a single cell becoming so many different forms of life.




Abiogenesis simply means "life from non-life".

That's it.

Now, without assuming that there is a Creator, and also without assuming that life has existed for eternity past, there is *going to be* abiogenesis. This is a binary system. There either was intelligent design, or there was not (and therefore abiogenesis). Either/or. No other options. 

And one of these options makes an assumption.


Now, I will give you that the theories in which the actual abiogenesis occured are arguable and are the subject of some debate - but the fact that *something* happened is given by our very existence. And without making baseless assumptions, that something *must be* abiogenesis.


(As I said, I believe in ID, but the above is an explanation of why I don't consider it *Science*).



This_person said:


> You told me before that I was misrepresenting evolution by saying that, but when I asked how that was a misrepresentation (of you then, of Xaquin, NS, Tommy, and many others over many threads with a similar comment), no one has been able to demonstrate how that's a misrepresentation.



Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. When I said you were misrepresenting evolution, I was referring to the fact that you explicitly said "I should be able to take a sponge, and several generations later have a ficus" (or something similar), which is implicitly saying that a person should be able to watch evolution take place over the course of 25-30 years - at worst, within a lifetime.

Evolution encompasses billions or trillions of generations over hundreds of millions of years, and is so mind-bogglingly gradual that its undetectable within a lifetime - or many, many lifetimes.

It's measured in eons, eras and epochs.



This_person said:


> I agree.  But, what I'm saying about the Big Bang is that the first bit of time of that "bang", the natural laws do not exist.  If we can reasonably follow a scientific theory that has "super" natural laws in this, why can't we follow what would therefore be an equally scientific theory with "super" natural laws?



Why would you assume that natural laws do not exist? And if that's not your assumption, I was unaware that the big bang theory imposed physical laws which are different from the laws we have now.

The theory of the big bang (notice it's still called a theory) is derived from the fact that the universe is noticably, detectably and observably expanding. Without making assumptions (such as Divine Involvement) it is reasonable to infer that it's expanding FROM somewhere. So you trace it backwards and backwards over billions of years and you have pinpointed where it all began. Since it's all still expanding billions of years later, some significant amount of force must have set it in motion. Perhaps some sort of explosion?

That's all I'm getting at - Intelligent design makes an assumption. Big Bang and evolution do not.


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> Abiogenesis simply means "life from non-life".
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Now, without assuming that there is a Creator, and also without assuming that life has existed for eternity past, there is *going to be* abiogenesis. This is a binary system. There either was intelligent design, or there was not (and therefore abiogenesis). Either/or. No other options.
> 
> And one of these options makes an assumption.
> 
> 
> Now, I will give you that the theories in which the actual abiogenesis occured are arguable and are the subject of some debate - but the fact that *something* happened is given by our very existence. And without making baseless assumptions, that something *must be* abiogenesis.


I understand what you're saying here.  I merely disagree that it's automatically baseless to consider creation.  You say that the fact we're here is the given observation of abiogenesis.  My argument is that the mechanism of abiogenesis being creation is no more baseless than any other mechanism, because it's based upon the same observation (we exist).  It's merely a different and equally unprovable theory as all the rest of the theories of the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  It takes the same observation (we're here), and researches the likelihood of us being here, and comes up with a theory of how it could have happened.





> (As I said, I believe in ID, but the above is an explanation of why I don't consider it *Science*).


And, the above is why I consider it to be at least as good science as any other.  It has the same testability, repeatability as any other theory of the mechanism of abiogenesis.  If that's not science, neither is any other mechanism.





> Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. When I said you were misrepresenting evolution, I was referring to the fact that you explicitly said "I should be able to take a sponge, and several generations later have a ficus" (or something similar), which is implicitly saying that a person should be able to watch evolution take place over the course of 25-30 years - at worst, within a lifetime.
> 
> Evolution encompasses billions or trillions of generations over hundreds of millions of years, and is so mind-bogglingly gradual that its undetectable within a lifetime - or many, many lifetimes.
> 
> It's measured in eons, eras and epochs.


And, the best we've been able to come up with researching certain insects (etc) with extremely short lifespans - where we can look at hundreds of thousands of generations, literally - is that for some unexplained reason a group can digest stuff other groups can't.  We can't explain why, see the mechanism by which it occured, or reproduce it, but we see that anomoly.  That's the type of experiment that is the basis of "proof" for evolution occuring.  Millions of generations in, and no group began to become even even a little more complex (ie, advance to higher levels of life UP the food chain) let alone any significant changes.

And, the fact that we can't do any reasonable experiment suggests to me that we're going on conjecture to get from that sponge to anything more complex.  We have NOTHING to go on other than that we have so many forms of life on the planet.  That's really the only scientific observation we have.  And, that ID has.





> Why would you assume that natural laws do not exist? And if that's not your assumption, I was unaware that the big bang theory imposed physical laws which are different from the laws we have now.




			
				University of Mich said:
			
		

> Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.
> 
> As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.
> 
> After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.
> 
> After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen.





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Physicists believe that general relativity becomes incompatible with quantum mechanics at the Planck scale, so that the predictions of general relativity cannot be trusted before the Planck era when energies and temperatures reached the Planck scale, and that we need a theory of quantum gravitation before we can say anything about times before the Planck era.
> 
> The Planck epoch
> Up to 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang
> Main article: Planck epoch
> If supersymmetry is correct, then during this time the four fundamental forces — electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation — all have the same strength, so they are possibly unified into one fundamental force. Little is known about this epoch, although different theories propose different scenarios. General relativity proposes a gravitational singularity before this time, but under these conditions the theory is expected to break down due to quantum effects. Physicists hope that proposed theories of quantum gravitation, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, will eventually lead to a better understanding of this epoch.





> The theory of the big bang (notice it's still called a theory) is derived from the fact that the universe is noticably, detectably and observably expanding. Without making assumptions (such as Divine Involvement) it is reasonable to infer that it's expanding FROM somewhere. So you trace it backwards and backwards over billions of years and you have pinpointed where it all began. Since it's all still expanding billions of years later, some significant amount of force must have set it in motion. Perhaps some sort of explosion?
> 
> That's all I'm getting at - Intelligent design makes an assumption. Big Bang and evolution do not.


This is where we'll have to disagree.  The only difference I see is that ID assumes and intelligence behind how it all started, and science ASSUMES there's not.  There's no fundamental difference in each assumption from a provability standpoint.  As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the questions regarding time _before_ the Big Bang/Creation, one must accept that we're presented with the observation of, reasonably, something beyond the universe which could present us with the source material for the universe.  At least ID has a theory on that


----------



## Toxick

The other stuff looks like interesting reading. I am pretty busy today, so I'll have to go over it some other time.

I'll address this point, however:



This_person said:


> The only difference I see is that ID assumes and intelligence behind how it all started, and science ASSUMES there's not.



One cannot _assume a negative_. Much as one cannot _prove a negative_. By virtue of the scientific method, the one making the assertion carries the burden of proof. 

I cannot prove that an invisible weightless unicorn is not taking a dump on your head right now. You can't prove it either - however if I were to insist that there was one, you may politely disagree, but inside you'd think I was a damn fool.

Science does *not* assume that God did not create the universe. It merely states that there is no proof that He did, and therefore no theorums may rely on the assumption that He did.





This_person said:


> There's no fundamental difference in each assumption from a provability standpoint.



One difference. You don't prove a negative. Saying "There is no intelligent design" is not an affirmative sentence, and therefore *does not require* affirmation.


----------



## baydoll

I'm back! 

Okay, I've decided to answer Turnin's (?) post first:

I asked:



> Where the first DNA came from



He (she?) answered: 



> Earlier genetic material, such as RNA and replicating protein strains



And where did those earlier genetic material come from?

(more to come....)


----------



## baydoll

I asked Turning where this vast amounts of information in animal/human DNA comes from to which he/she quiped:  




> From the earlier, lesser amounts of information in other DNA. Compare to creatures with the smallest amount of DNA



Smallest amounts of DNA? Which would be what, exactly?


----------



## baydoll

More...

Me: how molecular machines evolved, 

Turnin:





> From other molecular machines, some of which are naturally occuring even today.



Like I said before, a non-answer. 

OBVIOUSLY they are naturally occurring even today. If  they weren’t none of us would be on this forum discussing molecular machinery in the first place. 

Ever heard of an Irreducible Complex System?  An irreducible complex system is  "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Every living thing are literally filled with molecular machines that perform numerous functions of life. These molecular machines are irreducible complex, meaning all the parts of each machine are completely formed, in the right place, the right size in operating order at the same time for the machine to work.

I like this example of what irreducible complex system looks like and how it works and will use it here:

"A car engine is an example of irreducible complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling systems, engine compartment and other systems, or the new engine will not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like the car engine. Every functions in the human body-such as blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organisms) and vision requires irreducible complex systems that could not have been developed in the gradual Darwinisian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would NOT BE FUNCTIONAL. 

As with a car engine ALL the parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be ANY function at all. 

You  can  build an engine part by part (and even then the engine doesn’t just ‘build’ itself over a long period of time….) but you can’t drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nor could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.  

If Darwinism is to be true, functionality must be maintained at all times because living things cannot survive if, say, their vital organs do not perform their usual function during the slow trail and error Darwininian transitions."


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> More...
> 
> Me: how molecular machines evolved,
> 
> Turnin:
> 
> Like I said before, a non-answer.
> 
> OBVIOUSLY they are naturally occurring even today. If  they weren’t none of us would be on this forum discussing molecular machinery in the first place.
> 
> Ever heard of an Irreducible Complex System?  An irreducible complex system is  "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
> 
> Every living thing are literally filled with molecular machines that perform numerous functions of life. These molecular machines are irreducible complex, meaning all the parts of each machine are completely formed, in the right place, the right size in operating order at the same time for the machine to work.
> 
> I like this example of what irreducible complex system looks like and how it works and will use it here:
> 
> "A car engine is an example of irreducible complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling systems, engine compartment and other systems, or the new engine will not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like the car engine. Every functions in the human body-such as blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organisms) and vision requires irreducible complex systems that could not have been developed in the gradual Darwinisian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would NOT BE FUNCTIONAL.
> 
> As with a car engine ALL the parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be ANY function at all.
> 
> You  can  build an engine part by part (and even then the engine doesn’t just ‘build’ itself over a long period of time….) but you can’t drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nor could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.
> 
> *If Darwinism is to be true, functionality must be maintained at all times because living things cannot survive if, say, their vital organs do not perform their usual function during the slow trail and error Darwininian transitions*."



ok, i'll play....

what about the appendix?

it is an organ that we either needed before and not so much now, or is something we may evolve into using in the future. doesn't this "sleeping ability" destroy the pure funtionality rethoric you are prescribing to?


Also, if one little thing can disprove darwinism, can't the same be said for the bible? if we find one thing that is demonstrably not true, then the whole thing must be tossed?


----------



## This_person

Toxick said:


> One cannot _assume a negative_. Much as one cannot _prove a negative_. By virtue of the scientific method, the one making the assertion carries the burden of proof.


I more or less agree.  However, before proof, all is negative.

So, abiogenesis is life from lifelessness.  This is the observation to justify that:  we exist, as do gazillions of other life forms, and direct and indirect evidence that the current state of life on Earth is about 1% of all life that's ever been on Earth.  From that, hypothesis have to be made as to how life came from lifelessness.

Suppose certain chemical elements came together in just the right fashion, at just the right time, with just the right energy influence, etc., etc.  This is one supposition, completely unsupported by any fact, any proof, any empiracal data, anything at all.  But, it's considered a scientific supposition.

Now suppose that an intelligence beyond our four dimensions put those chemical elements together in just the right fashion, at just the right time.......  This is a supposition completely unsupported by any fact, any proof, any empiraclal data, anything at all.  But, it's considered a non-scientific supposition.  Why?  In the randomness of all the universe, if we can create new laws when we can witness things on the subatomic level that don't follow current laws and when we can presume the first 10E-43 seconds of universal existance can have different than our currently understood natural laws, why can't we accept yet another possibility of different natural laws (a supernatural entity)?  It's just a supposition, with the same facts supporting it - we exist.

We don't know the conditions under which life first came from lifelessness.  Any test we would perform would be tainted by our very existance into that test - contaminating the lifelessness from which we would be testing life.  It's pure fiction to imagine any test that could reasonably prove any theory.  Because we cannot show any reasonable explaination of life from lifelessness, the mere concept would have to ALSO be considered supernatural.  Does that mean we no longer exist?  


> I cannot prove that an invisible weightless unicorn is not taking a dump on your head right now. You can't prove it either - however if I were to insist that there was one, you may politely disagree, but inside you'd think I was a damn fool.
> 
> Science does *not* assume that God did not create the universe. It merely states that there is no proof that He did, and therefore no theorums may rely on the assumption that He did.
> 
> One difference. You don't prove a negative. Saying "There is no intelligent design" is not an affirmative sentence, and therefore *does not require* affirmation.


There's no observation of the unicorn.  There is an observation of life.

George Carlin did a line in one of his appearances on Carson (with Flip Wilson, they were newsmen and it was hillarious ((mostly))), where he said that a new disease was discovered.  It has no symptoms, does not effect the body in any way, has no known cause, and no known cure.  I think it's the unicorn!  

I agree science cannot assume there's a God.  But, when brainstorming the initiating factor of the universe, or of life itself, it's idiotic to rule out any potential answer when no answer without it comes any closer than an Intelligent Designer.  I don't seek everyone to agree that there's a Creator, just don't dismiss one of the potential answers, and claim it's not science to think beyond our four dimensions.


----------



## baydoll

tommyjones said:


> ok, i'll play....
> 
> what about the appendix?
> 
> it is an organ that we either needed before and not so much now, or is something we may evolve into using in the future. doesn't this "sleeping ability" destroy the pure funtionality rethoric you are prescribing to?



Even so, Tommy, that still doesn't explain the rest of the body's amazing ability to function.  These complicated systems cannot have been evolved in gradual steps as the evolution model claims because the system works only if all components are present and connected correctly. If only one component is missing, the irreducible complex machine will not work. 





> Also, if one little thing can disprove darwinism, can't the same be said for the bible? if we find one thing that is demonstrably not true, then the whole thing must be tossed



It's not really 'one little thing'. It's LOADS and LOADS of big 'things' that disproves Darwinism. 

Name one thing that disproves the Bible.


----------



## tommyjones

baydoll said:


> Even so, Tommy, that still doesn't explain the rest of the body's amazing ability to function.  These complicated systems cannot have been evolved in gradual steps as the evolution model claims because the system works only if all components are present and connected correctly. If only one component is missing, the irreducible complex machine will not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really 'one little thing'. It's LOADS and LOADS of big 'things' that disproves Darwinism.
> 
> Name one thing that disproves the Bible.



I'm glad you came back, but its a shame you are going to act ignorant of the numerous things that are inaccurate in the bible now. Its not good for a debate. A few of the little things have been listed again and again. you know, the mustard seed, bats being birds etc.


also i find it amusing that you now claim that the "complicated systems cannot have been evolved in gradual steps as the evolution model claims because the system works only if all components are present and connected correctly" when i just showed you that homans may very well have an organ that is in the process of being evolved or 'discontinued' Obviously the appendix existing gives credence to the theory that humans are evolving, and that this happens gradually enough that your "irreducible machine" theory is discredited.


----------



## foodcritic

tommyjones said:


> ok, i'll play....
> 
> what about the appendix?
> 
> it is an organ that we either needed before and not so much now, or is something we may evolve into using in the future. doesn't this "sleeping ability" destroy the pure funtionality rethoric you are prescribing to?
> 
> 
> Also, if one little thing can disprove darwinism, can't the same be said for the bible? if we find one thing that is demonstrably not true, then the whole thing must be tossed?



Because the gradual effect is so absent evidence...
Scientists had adopt more "theories" such as Punctuated Equilibrium which is sort of lake having your cake and eating it to.

Because they could not find it in the fossil record, things must have had times of rapid evolution in a relatively short time frame.  This is makes the pieces come(forced) together.

However  I suspect that while the fossil record is important why not what is observable NOW?  Why can't we find, what I believe, should be millions of transitional species alive now?  Anyone, Anyone?


----------



## tommyjones

foodcritic said:


> Because the gradual effect is so absent evidence...
> Scientists had adopt more "theories" such as Punctuated Equilibrium which is sort of lake having your cake and eating it to.
> 
> Because they could not find it in the fossil record, things must have had times of rapid evolution in a relatively short time frame.  This is makes the pieces come(forced) together.
> 
> However  I suspect that while the fossil record is important why not what is observable NOW?  Why can't we find, what I believe, should be millions of transitional species alive now?  Anyone, Anyone?



how do you know YOU aren't one?


----------



## xusnret

tommyjones said:


> my GF's priest and i were talking aout this the other day. we both had a big laugh about the fact there are people who actually believe that the devil put fossils in the gound jsut to discredit the bible and to make people question its integrity. The priest and i agree that fossils (we were talking aout dinosaurs) dont necessarily discredit the bible, but believing the DEBIL did it is just.... well.... you got to be pretty gulible



This just about sums it up:  Dinosaurs in the Bible - Video


----------



## foodcritic

*Thanks Mr Dawkins or should I say Knucklehead!*



Nucklesack said:


> Yeah good luck on getting her to address that.  But then according to Penn, pointing out an example of something she asked for makes me a Thug
> 
> (figure that one out)
> 
> Dont forget the blind cave salamanders (if you do a search in this you'll find references)
> 
> *The vestigial eyes, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I know your big on accurate quotations and citations etc...your comment above seemed oddly familiar.....
> 
> 
> *Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors? *
> 
> How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine
> 
> At least you could give credit instead of tying to pass it off as your own thought.


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> foodcritic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, the quote is a quote from a previous quote of a Thread, but we dont expect you to follow along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....You could still have cited the reference...I could care less, your the quote police
Click to expand...


----------



## foodcritic

*Ok...and*



Nucklesack said:


> foodcritic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, the quote is a quote from a previous quote of a Thread, but we dont expect you to follow along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did read it ......guess what the first 2 paragraphs are quoted as Hitchens.  But HELLO the remainder of the wording is not quoted and is typed to look like your own.....
> 
> 
> I suggest you look at it.
Click to expand...


----------



## wxtornado

I’m a polyatheist - there are many gods I don’t believe in.


----------



## wxtornado

baydoll said:


> Ever heard of an Irreducible Complex System?



Yes, it's an old rehash of the famously flawed "watchmaker" argument at the start of the 19th century.


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> I’m a polyatheist - there are many gods I don’t believe in.



So I can surmise from this that there are some that you do believe in?


----------



## Xaquin44

I guess if you're bad at surmising


----------



## PsyOps

Xaquin44 said:


> I guess if you're bad at surmising



ah... wx's answering service. And you're bad at guessing.


----------



## Xaquin44

PsyOps said:


> ah... wx's answering service. And you're bad at guessing.



I'm not anyone's answering service .... 

just for fun though, I'll let you know why I said that.

lets pick apart that sentence.

"I’m a polyatheist - there are many gods I don’t believe in."

so, he doesn't believe in many gods.

you said:

"So I can surmise from this that there are some that you do believe in?"

so you say that you can surmise belief in some gods for a statement containing only disbelief.


----------



## PsyOps

Xaquin44 said:


> I'm not anyone's answering service ....
> 
> just for fun though, I'll let you know why I said that.
> 
> lets pick apart that sentence.
> 
> "I’m a polyatheist - there are many gods I don’t believe in."
> 
> so, he doesn't believe in many gods.
> 
> you said:
> 
> "So I can surmise from this that there are some that you do believe in?"
> 
> so you say that you can surmise belief in some gods for a statement containing only disbelief.



Then perhaps you should stop answering for wx.  That is unless you are wx's MPD.  Suspicions mount.  

It was a question to wx.  Not a statement.  See the "?" at the end?  That denotes a question.


----------



## Xaquin44

PsyOps said:


> Then perhaps you should stop answering for wx.  That is unless you are wx's MPD.  Suspicions mount.
> 
> It was a question to wx.  Not a statement.  See the "?" at the end?  That denotes a question.



Nope, I'm not wx.

I wasn't answering for him, but it was a question that I felt I could answer simply based on a comparison of the two sentences.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

No sweat off my back, or whatever the saying is.


----------



## PsyOps

Xaquin44 said:


> Nope, I'm not wx.
> 
> I wasn't answering for him, but it was a question that I felt I could answer simply based on a comparison of the two sentences.
> 
> If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
> 
> No sweat off my back, or whatever the saying is.



Okie dokie...


----------



## Xaquin44

PsyOps said:


> Okie dokie...



thumbs up emoticon!


----------



## PsyOps

Nucklesack said:


> I do believe he's saying a version of what i've said before.
> 
> When you put it in perspective of all the Gods and Deities that are available to believe in, I just believe in one less than You



I appreciate that deep insight into the thoughts of wx.  Everyone is answering except the person I asked.  Interesting.  You all seem to be very in tune with each other.  Almost Jedi-like.  Spooky.


----------



## Xaquin44

PsyOps said:


> I appreciate that deep insight into the thoughts of wx.  Everyone is answering except the person I asked.  Interesting.  You all seem to be very in tune with each other.  Almost Jedi-like.  Spooky.



or we're just putting forth opinions.

AMAZING!


----------



## PsyOps

Xaquin44 said:


> or we're just putting forth opinions.
> 
> *AMAZING!*



Well, thank you.


----------



## PsyOps

Nucklesack said:


> Another "Legitimate" religion



Saw one just the other day.  Of course the batteries went dead in his light saber.  So I lived.


----------



## wxtornado

You know, it took me a while (reading posts here) to even figure out what an MPD is.  If I'm correct, we call those "multinicks" at other boards.  I don't even know what MPD stands for.  But to answer your question PsyOps, no, I don't believe in any gods.


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> You know, it took me a while (reading posts here) to even figure out what an MPD is.  If I'm correct, we call those "multinicks" at other boards.  I don't even know what MPD stands for.  But to answer your question PsyOps, no, I don't believe in any gods.



Thank you.  I kind of gathered that.

MPD = Multiple Personality Disorder


----------

